Europe's Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Communities - GWL Terrein ...

Institute for Transportation & Development Policy

Europe’s Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Communities Nicole Foletta and Simon Field Summer 2011

Executive Summary

5

case studies Greenwich Millennium Village

This report was researched and written by Nicole Foletta and Simon Field in 2010. It was edited by Dani Simons. Many thanks to Walter Hook, Luc Nadal and Michael Kodranksy for their reviews and revisions. Cover photo from La-Citta-Vita on Flickr.

8

GWL Terrein

18

Hammarby Sjöstad

30

Houten

46

Sihlcity

60

Stellwerk 60

70

Västra Hamnen

82

Vauban

94

conclusion Comparative Analysis

107

Lessons Learned

113

building low car(bon) communities

Executive Summary Moving is a time to reevaluate the stuff you own. Boxes of family photos? Coming. That ratty old couch? Not coming. But what if you could leave something even bigger behind? Like your car? New developments are often associated with sprawl and more driving. But eight communities across Europe demonstrate there is a different model. ITDP Europe investigated these developments and found by using smart urban and transportation planning and design, they have created communities with lower car ownership rates and less driving than nearby developments of comparable sizes and age. As a result these communities have less pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, public health issues and other negative externalities associated with driving. These new developments use a combination of “push” measures to discourage private car use and “pull” measures to improve the attractiveness of walking, cycling, transit and various forms of shared vehicle use. As the report demonstrates, these measures work, and could be applied in other new developments around the world, particularly in abandoned industrial sites or on other previously developed land. The eight case study locations are summarized in Table 1. Eventually these measures should be applied to all urban development, in order to minimize the need for driving and maximize the opportunities for healthier, more sustainable forms of transportation. Therefore ITDP presents these case studies, identifies lessons learned and compares the planning, design and travel demand management techniques used so that others might follow the lead of these eight communities. Each case study includes background information on the origins of the development and how these best practices were incorporated at early stages of the developments’ planning processes, before describing individual measures in more detail. Quantitative data on vehicle ownership, modal split and transport-related emissions are

principles for smart urban growth

1. Walk: Develop neighborhoods that promote walking 2. Cycle: Prioritize bicycle networks 3. Connect: Create dense networks of streets and paths 4. Transit: Support high-quality transit 5. Mix: Plan for mixed use 6. Densify: Match density with transit capacity 7. Compact: Create compact regions with short commutes 8. Shift: Increase mobility by regulating parking and local road use

Developed by a team of urban design experts including ITDP, Gehl Architects, Nelson Nygraard, and Calthorpe Associates

then presented, based on the literature and/or surveys developed by ITDP Europe, followed by a summary of lessons learned and recommendations for further research. It is worth noting that the most successful “car-free” and largely “parking-free” developments reviewed had well-organized grassroots support for the concept from the outset. Planners and decision makers should look for willing partners as they undertake these

Table 1: Case study locations Size (hectares)

Development

Location

Type

Greenwich Millennium Village

London, United Kingdom

Brownfield: mixed use, car-reduced

29

GWL Terrein

Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Brownfield: residential, car-free

6

Hammarby Sjöstad

Stockholm, Sweden

Brownfield: mixed use

160

Houten

Utrecht, The Netherlands

Greenfield “cycling city” of 45,000 people

820

Sihlcity

Zurich, Switzerland

Brownfield: leisure and retail

4

Stellwerk 60

Cologne, Germany

Brownfield: residential, car-free

6

Västra Hamnen

Malmö, Sweden

Brownfield: mixed use

175

Vauban

Freiburg, Germany

Brownfield: mixed use, car-reduced

41

6 Europe’s Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Communities

Executive Summary 7

transit, living car-free becomes more realistic. Many developments also provide nearby carsharing locations to help residents feel more comfortable giving up their private cars.

endeavors. And they should foster community participation to build support as the project evolves, and to ensure the endurance of the vision for the development once it is built. The top lessons learned from these case studies closely align with the Principles for Transport in Urban Life, and are as follows:

3. Create compact regions with short commutes and zone new developments for mixed use.

1. Develop neighborhoods for walking and prioritize bicycling networks. The majority of developments in the case studies provide direct, safe and comfortable walking and cycling routes, and plentiful covered cycle parking. They also use a technique called “filtered permability” to make travel by bicycle or foot more direct than by car (Table 2), and locate bicycle parking closer to homes than car parking. This gives walking and cycling a competitive advantage over the car. Some are beginning to use bike sharing to encourage occasional bike use by visitors and residents alike. These developments are built with pedestrians and cyclists in mind; dense networks of streets allow pedestrians and cyclists to pass, even where cars cannot (filtered permeability). This design is reinforced with low speed limits and traffic calming. By making car use less convenient than other modes, residents are subtly nudged to consider other modes.

2. Provide high-quality transit. The transport in all of the case study areas is responsive to resident needs, and therefore has high mode share. Stops are within half a kilometer of every home, and service frequencies are at least every 15 minutes. Integration into the regional transit network and long service hours all make riding convenient while low-cost period passes keep it affordable. By optimizing conditions for walking, cycling and

These case studies also suggest that new developments should be planned as closely as possible to existing job centers and other destinations. This makes investments in transit and cycling networks more efficient and effective. Mixed uses (housing, jobs, leisure facilities, shops, grocery stores, etc.) should be incorporated into new developments at site selection and masterplanning stage, to minimize travel distances, enabling residents to make routine trips on foot or by bicycle, with convenient public transportation offering a realistic alternative to the car.

4. Increase mobility by regulating parking and road use. In addition to the nudges the urban design of these communities provide, many also use regulations to incentivize and in some cases mandate reduced car use, using a variety of techniques including placing stringent caps on car trip generation and CO2 emissions and relaxing parking minimums if other criteria to reduce car demand are met. In many of the cases, parking supply has been reduced and the parking that does exist is separated spatially and fiscally from housing units. In some cases the planners have also required developers to fund or build transportation infrastructure and services (including mobility management services) as a condition of site approval. Masterplanning competitions can foster further innovation in both the built environment and transportation planning.

Table 2: Mode share and car ownership rates for study sites and reference areas

Mode share (proportion of all trips) Location

by car

by transit

by bicycle

on foot

Cars per 1,000 residents

Greenwich Millennium Village

18%

49%

4%

29%

350

Greenwich District

44%

29%

1%

26%

350

GWL Terrein

6%

14%

50%

30%

190

Amsterdam West

20%

18%

32%

30%

310

Hammarby Sjöstad

21%

52%

9%

18%

210

Stockholm Reference District

35%

50%

7%

8%

n/a

City of Houten

34%

11%

28%

27%

415

City of Zeist (The Netherlands)

46%

11%

29%

14%

530

Sihlcity: visitor trips

30%

70% (transit, cycling, walking combined)

—

Letzipark: visitor trips

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

—

Stellwerk 60

21% *

53% *

31% *

29% *

60

Nippes District

61% *

33% *

3% *

3% *

309 +

Västra Hamnen

23%

17%

31%

29%

440

City of Malmö

41%

16%

23%

20%

480

Vauban #

16%

19%

64% (bicycle/walking combined)

160

City of Freiburg #

30%

18%

28%

393

* Mode share based on distance traveled + Data for the smaller Nippes Stadtteil # Mode share data from 1999/2000 (prior to extension of the tram system to Vauban)

24%

5. Market sustainable transportation. Many of these developments make ongoing efforts to reinforce their founding vision and to empower residents and visitors to make sustainable travel decisions by offering tailored mobility advice, running marketing and awareness campaigns, and through promotions such as free or discounted transit passes or car-sharing membership for new residents. Ongoing measures to encourage low-emission travel behavior are important to ensure the long-term transport sustainability of residents. Planners should consider whether the developers should be asked to fund these initiatives or if there are ways to create dedicated streams of revenue (e.g. by earmarking a portion of parking fees or outdoor advertising fees/space) to fund them over time.

6. Don’t forget the larger policy context. Transportation policies at the city, regional and national levels play a key role in shaping daily travel behavior and residential locations in the longer-term. Congestion charges, citywide parking management policies, high fuel prices, and high quality transit all influence mode choice, reinforcing site-specific measures such as car-access restrictions, provision of high quality walking and cycling facilities and filtered permeability. All of the case study cities are served by national railroad systems, providing an alternative to the car for longer-distance journeys, thereby complementing measures to discourage car ownership and use in the local area. A comparative analysis is presented in chapter ten, providing an overview of TDM measures, details of transit provision and urban design features, and a summary of key transport-related sustainability indicators: car ownership, modal split (summarized in Table 2) and transport-related emissions.

In summary, it was found that private car use accounts for less than 35% of all trips made by residents in all of the sites (Stellwerk 60 result inferred from distance-based data), a figure that is generally lower than comparable sites without integrated TDM strategies. Car ownership was found to be no more than 440 vehicles per 1,000 residents in the residential developments, and less than 200 in sites with priced, limited and spatially separated parking: GWL Terrein, Stellwerk 60 and Vauban. These sites generate less than 350 kg of car-related CO2 per capita per annum, equivalent to savings of around two thirds compared with their reference areas. These figures demonstrate both the efficacy of TDM measures and the importance of building in the right location, close to centers of existing economic and social activity.

Further Research Needs Further household research should be conducted to update the case studies as necessary and to add to the evidence base justifying the implementation of these policies and practices in Western Europe and in new developments around the globe. Additional quantitative research is required to assess both the demand for car-free living and the financial performance — in terms of rental and property prices — of heavily car-reduced and car-free areas. This would encourage local authorities, planners, investors and developers to be more pro-active in considering this type of development, which has been shown to reduce car dependence and transport-related CO2 emissions significantly. Many of the lessons learned are replicable or adaptable for implementation elsewhere: the task now is to communicate the successful and transferable policies to politicians, planners and other relevant stakeholders across the world.

gmv site facts Developer: Greenwich Millennium Village Limited (GMVL) Architect: Ralph Erskine Population: 2,300 Developed Area: 20 ha Total Area: 29 ha Current Density: 120 persons/ha Projected Density: 180 persons/ha Current Residential Units: 1,095 Planned Residential Units: 2,900 Construction Began: 1999 Planned Completion: 2014 Distance from City Center: 9 km Cars: 350 cars/1,000 residents Parking Spaces/Residence: 0.8 Non-motorized Mode Share: 32% Public Transport Mode Share: 49%

case study

Greenwich Millennium Village london, united kingdom Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe


Greenwich Millennium Village 11

background Greenwich Millennium Village (GMV) is an excellent example of mixed-use, brownfield redevelopment, well-served by transit, with strict parking regulations and a layout that limits through car traffic (Photo 1). While car ownership rates in the development are only marginally better than in the surrounding area, car use is significantly lower. GMV is located on the Greenwich Peninsula, a 121-hectare brownfield redevelopment site formerly occupied by the town gas works, on the southern banks of the River Thames in southeast London, about 9 kilometers from the London city center. In 1997 English Partnerships1 committed to transforming the Peninsula, one of the largest development sites in London, into a new residential community. The regeneration project is currently in phase one of a twenty-year build program, which will see 10,000 residential units, leisure and retail facilities, as well as educational and health centers. GMV occupies 29 hectares on the south-eastern side of the Greenwich Peninsula. The project was the first “Millennium Community” to be identified by English Partnerships and is being developed by Greenwich Millennium Village Limited, a joint venture between Countryside Properties and Taylor Wimpey. The Millennium Communities Programme was launched by English Partnerships alongside the Department for Communities and Local Government to create seven exemplary sustainable communities nationwide. Each of the seven communities is to incorporate high-density housing, green spaces, good transport links, and easy access to shops and recreation facilities, producing quality places where people want to live. In order to ensure that sustainability goals are met, the Millennium Communities Programme has set standards for energy efficiency, water consumption, transport, building defects, recycling and health and safety on site. In line with these goals, the housing at GMV is of modern, environmentally-friendly design, and the development aims to cut primary energy use by 80%, compared to traditional developments of similar size, using low-energy building techniques and renewable energy technologies. Finally the project aims to reduce car dependency by giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians, providing access to high quality public transportation, and restricting and pricing car parking (Photos 2 and 3). London is one of the largest and most congested cities in Europe, it has also been on the forefront of fighting congestion in part by reducing demand for private car use. While policies like congestion charging have been successful in Inner London, car use remains prevalent in Outer London. Therefore it is important for developments such as GMV, located outside the city center, to implement strategies aimed at reducing car dependency. GMV is marketed as an experiment in sustainable development. New residents are given a packet of information on sustainable living when they move in. Various studies have shown that residents support the concept and ethos of the village. Further, they appreciate the

sustainable design features and enjoy being part of the special community, demonstrating the project’s success not only as a sustainable development, but as a liveable community as well (Cherry and Hodkinson 2009). To date, 1,095 homes, a primary school, a health center, an ecology park and a village square with shops have been completed, on 20 hectares (Figure 1). All of the residential units are currently occupied. The homes completed include a number of live/work units and a wide range of affordable housing. Developers plan to continue expansion of GMV until 2014, including additional housing, retail, and a community center, with a total developed area of 29 hectares for the entire village (English Partnerships Website).

planning process In 1997, English Partnerships launched a competition to design and build Greenwich Millennium Village, the first community in the Millennium Communities Programme. The competition was won by Greenwich Millennium Village Limited (GMVL), a joint venture between Countryside Properties and Taylor Wimpey. English Partnerships and GMVL signed a Section 106 Agreement (see Section 106 Agreements sidebar, p. 11) in which GMVL agreed to build a sustainable mixed-use residential development of 1,400 dwellings

key policy and design strategy The Millennium Communities Programme has recognized reduced car dependency as a key sustainability issue. This is especially apparent in the city of London which has limited room for additional parking spaces and a high level of traffic congestion. Spurred by these concerns, GMV has incorporated several transportation demand management strategies aimed at reducing car dependency and promoting other, more sustainable forms of transport.

Parking

Bus Stop

1

nglish Partnerships was a non-departmental public body funded E through the Department for Communities and Local Government. It was responsible for land acquisition and assembly and major development projects, alone or in joint partnership with private sector developers. In December 2008 its powers passed to a successor body, the new Homes and Communities Agency.

with 20% designated as affordable housing. For the affordable housing portion of the development, GMVL is working in association with social housing partners Moat Housing. GMVL also agreed to contribute a specified sum for bus improvements in the area and to submit a parking garage management plan. In return, English Partnerships agreed to fund the Millennium Busway, a bus only lane running through the development, as well as a state of the art integrated school and health center, which opened in 2001 (see Figure 1). English Partnerships also agreed to produce an annual travel monitoring study including analysis of mode split and parking demand of GMV residents in addition to a strategy plan for reducing car use. Construction of GMV began in 1999 and the first homes were occupied by 2000. Phases 1 and 2 of the building process were completed by 2002, producing 1,095 residential units, a village square with shops, an artificial lake and an ecology park. In 2006 a new Section 106 Agreement was signed between the Greenwich Peninsula landowners, English Partnerships, and GMVL. This agreement increased the planned development size from 1,400 to 2,900 residential units and increased the required share of affordable housing from 20% to 35%. The agreement laid out the plans for Phases 3 and 4 of the development which will include construction of around 1,800 additional new homes, 15,000 square feet of retail spaces, 70,000 square feet of work space, a community center and a nursery. The planned completion date for Phases 3 and 4 is 2014 (English Partnerships Website).

Health Center

Bus Only Lane

Carsharing

School

Walking and Cycling Path

Parking

Development Area Phase I+II

Parking

Grocery Store

Development Area Phase III+IV

Grocery Store

Figure 1: Map of GMV

As part of its strategy to reduce car dependency, motor vehicle parking at GMV is restricted and generally located away from individual properties. Parking spaces are only available for 80% of units. Two floors of parking garage are located beneath two of the apartment buildings built during Phase 1. In Phase 2, car parking facilities were separated from apartment units and located at the edge of the development. Overall there are 884 parking spaces in the development. Further, parking spaces are unbundled from apartment units, so residents who choose to have a parking space must pay for it separately from their residence. Residents don’t pay for a specific parking space, but rather for a “right to park,” which means they can enter the parking garage and must then search for an available space. Prices per space have gone up since the development was first built, but the current price is 17,500 gbp per parking space (Marcello Burbante, pers. comm.). Only residents who have purchased a space are allowed to park in the garages; visitors are not allowed. Visitors are expected either to park temporarily in the bays on the main roads, which are frequently ticketed by the council, or in the public parking lot next to the North Greenwich transit station located 0.8 kilometers northwest of GMV.

section 106 agreements

These agreements refer to Section 106 of the British Parliament’s Town and Country Planning Act of 1990, which regulates the development of land in England and Wales. Section 106 permits local authorities and developers to make agreements over the use of land, including planning obligations by the developer to contribute towards sustainable communities and offset the costs of the external effects of the development. Contributions by the developer may include cash, infrastructure investments or provision of services. Examples include provision of new schools, public space, affordable housing, new roads and public transport. Section 106 agreements are legally binding and are linked to the granting of planning permission. Each agreement is different and depends on the unique needs of each community. Some agreements may include measures aimed at reducing transport-related emissions. Transport-related measures that have been included by the Greenwich Council (specifically for the Woolwich Town Centre Development) include: provision of carsharing, controls on parking permits, emission-related parking charges, provision of electric vehicle charging points and use of bio-fuel in delivery vehicles (Birch 2010).

However, during school holidays people are informally allowed to park in the school’s parking lot. In addition, residents often rent out their spaces to neighbors during the winter holidays by advertising on bulletin boards in the shared spaces. In this way, residents have taken it upon themselves to manage the existing parking supply as efficiently as possible, treating it as a valuable commodity.

Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure On the flip side, GMV strives to promote cycling and walking. A network of cycle and pedestrian routes runs throughout the village and beyond, connecting the development to the surrounding areas. For example, a pedestrian walkway leads from GMV to The O2 Arena, a large sports and music venue located in the Millennium Dome on the northern side of the Greenwich Peninsula. Within GMV, secure bicycle storage facilities are provided for every housing unit and 2–3 bicycle parking spaces are available per unit, including several covered, weather-protective bicycle parking facilities (Photo 4).

Carsharing Two carsharing vehicles, provided by Streetcar, are located just to the north of GMV (Streetcar Website). These vehicles are located in a car bay on John Harrison Way, which boarders GMV. In addition, two Streetcar carsharing vehicles are located in a parking lot off of Tunnel Avenue, about half a kilometer south of GMV. Other than these four



1 Greenwhich Millennium Village

3 Millennium Busway The Millennium Busway runs from the station through GMV, with two stops located within the village.

2 North Greenwich Transit Station The Underground is the most popular mode of transport for GMV residents. The new station was built to allow for larger volumes of passengers and provides direct connection between the Underground and 8 bus routes.

4 Bicycle parking Secure bicycle storage is provided for every housing unit, and 2–3 bike parking spaces are available per unit.



vehicles, no other carsharing vehicles from any other companies are located on Greenwich Peninsula. There seems to be a potential to locate more carsharing vehicles on this site, particularly inside the GMV parking garages themselves.

pathways separated from motor vehicle traffic throughout the village. Furthermore, safety is enhanced through monitoring of transit stops, cycle routes and pedestrian areas by CCTV. Land Use Planning and Design: GMV was designed from the beginning as a mixed-use development combining residences, retail, commercial and leisure spaces. Phase 1 of the development consists of blocks of flats 8-10 stories high, surrounding inner courtyards, with two floors of parking garages beneath. The highest buildings are located on the northern side of the development, along the Thames River, to provide more waterfront views. Phase 2 includes a mix of lower rise flats up to six stories and terraced houses situated around public squares with car parking in a separate block at the side of the development. The residential units include a mix of tenure types. The village square is located near the center of the development, conveniently located within walking distance of residential units so that residents can easily conduct shopping trips and errands by bike or on foot. The uses in the village square include a small grocery store, a pharmacy and several cafes. Overall, the development includes 4,500 square meters of commercial space along with community facilities such as a school and health center (Countryside Properties Website).

Urban Design GMV was designed by masterplanning architect Ralph Erskine to be a modern urban village, incorporating high density residential units with green public spaces and providing opportunities for leisure activities and shopping. Erskine was known for his preference for design with limited through car traffic. He also worked on the Bo01 car-free development in Malmö. In line with these principles, Erskine’s vision for GMV was to create a community where the pedestrian has priority over the car. Street Layout and Design: Main thoroughfares run along the northwest and southwest borders of the development. Further, two main thoroughfares run through GMV. West Parkside bisects the development, while Southern Way splits off from West Parkside midway through the development and runs southward. A two-lane dedicated busway which starts at North Greenwich station passes through the village along West Parkside, turning onto Southern Way (Figure 1). The busway is separated from car lanes by a green median. The busway is distinguished by its brick-red color. On the south side of the village is a road that leads to the school parking lot. Other than these roads, the development is car-free and priority is given to cyclists and pedestrians.

Car Ownership Rates

Public transit use is high in GMV, particularly for trips to work. Indeed, the majority of GMV commuters (79%) travel to work by public transit. The breakdown by type of public transport shows that 73% of commuters travel to work by London Underground. This is not surprising given GMV’s easy access to the Jubilee Line, connecting the development to central London, and the high cost of driving to central London due to the city’s congestion charge. Figure 4 shows that a much larger proportion of GMV residents (79%) commute to work by public transit than Inner London residents (59%), Outer London residents (38%), and overall London residents (46%). Further, the proportion of GMV residents commuting to work by car is very low. Although a small proportion of GMV residents walk or cycle to work, a much higher number walk or cycle for other trip purposes such as traveling to school and shopping (see Figure 5). Nearly onethird of those who study walk to school, however, almost a quarter drive. These results are likely due to the mix of student types; children are more likely to walk or cycle to school within the village while adults taking classes outside the district might be more likely to drive. Further, while about half of residents use their car for their main

Figure 2 provides a comparison of car ownership rate per household for various segments of London. The rate for GMV falls between that of Inner London, where households are generally less car dependent, and that of Outer London, where households are typically more car dependent. The rate for GMV also falls below that for London. These figures demonstrate that many households in GMV choose to live car-free, although the car ownership rate is still not quite as low as it is in Inner London.

Mode Split However, while car ownership in GMV is higher than for Inner London, car use in GMV appears to be much lower than for other areas of London, even Inner London. As seen in Figure 3, only 18% of trips made by GMV residents are by car, which is much lower than for Greenwich (44%), Inner London (29%), Outer London (51%) and London (43%). The GMV data was collected through a survey of residents conducted to fulfill the requirements for the Section 106 Agreement, and included in the Travel Monitoring Study 2005 Report.

Figure 2: Car ownership of GMV as compared to surrounding area

quantitative analysis

1.2 0.95 cars per household

The policy and design measures used by GMV work. GMV has a much higher residential density than the Greenwich District, in which it is located, or London as a whole. And GMV residents are far less likely to use a private car (18%) as compared to their Greenwich neighbors (44%) or Londoners overall (42%). The car ownership rate per resident is also lower for GMV than for London (Table 1).

Public Space Design: Provision of public spaces was an important component of the design. The village includes an ecology park, a village square and landscaped courtyards. The ecology park, covering 0.2 square kilometers, includes two lakes and a thriving wildlife population. In addition, garden squares are located through-out the residential areas. The design gives priority to the cyclist and pedestrian, providing pedestrian and cycling

0.77

0.65

0.8

0.50 0.4

0.0 GMV

Inner London

Outer London

London

(2005)

(2005–06)

(2005–06)

(2005–06)

Table 1: GMV as compared to surrounding area

Figure 3: Mode split for all trips Greenwich

London

Population

2,300

223,000

7,600,000

Area (ha)

20 *

4,700

170,000

Population density (persons/ha)

120

47

45

Residential units

1,095

100,000

3,000,000

Cars per 1000 residents

350

350

370

Car parking spaces / residential unit

0.80

na

na

100% car

80%

public transit bicycle

percent of trips

GMV

walk

60%

40%

Mode share for all trips Car

18%

44%

42%

Public transit

49%

29%

25%

Bicycle

4%

1%

2%

Walking

29%

26%

31%

* current developed area

Rutherfords, 2005; Transport for London, 2010

* values shown are an average of values from 2005-2008.

20%


0% GMV

Greenwich

Inner London

Outer London

London

(2005)

(2005–08)

(2005–08) *

(2005–08) *

(2005–08) *




weekly food shopping trip, one-third walk or cycle for this trip. Many may travel to Sainsbury’s for this trip, the first low energy food store in Britain, which is located just south of GMV (within one kilometer of most residences). The store is 50% more efficient than a standard supermarket, incorporating use of natural light, high levels of insulation, passive ventilation and under-floor heating systems (GMV Website). However, while the supermarket has a focus on energy sustainability, it seems to have overlooked transport sustainability as it caters to the car; the store is located next to an extensive parking lot with more than 300 free to use spaces. The ease of accessible parking might encourage GMV residents to drive to the store rather than cycle or walk. The store is also accessible by bus; however, Figure 5 shows that few residents travel by bus to the grocery store.

Not included in Figure 5 are those who have groceries delivered. The resident survey found that eight percent have groceries delivered to their residence (Rutherfords 2005). This reduces the number of trips made by residents, but the effect on carbon footprint of these trips depends on delivery vehicle fuel and scheduling efficiency. In addition, more than half of residents walk or cycle for other shopping trips. Providing a wide variety of shops in the village makes it more convenient for residents to walk for these trips. The survey of residents was taken in 2005, and the number of shops in the village square has been expanded since that time, so it is likely that a more current survey would show a higher proportion of walking and cycling trips. Many live/work units are provided at GMV to encourage residents to work from home, thus reducing the number of commute

lessons learned While GMV residents drive less than their neighbors due to strong policy and design measures, overall car ownership remains higher than some of the other communities we reviewed. This is due in part to the location of GMV, far from central London, which demonstrates the importance of locating new development as close as possible to existing development. The good news is, GMV’s good public transit access, combined with the existence of London’s congestion fee, have resulted in an impressive commute mode share of 79% by public transit.

Figure 4: Mode of travel to work 100% car 80%

trips. Several more live/work units are planned as part of Phases 3 and 4. Overall it was found that 7% of GMV residents work from home. This is similar to the proportion for Greenwich (7%) and slightly lower than for Inner London (9%), Outer London (9%), and London (9%) (Rutherfords 2005). The results of this analysis show that the policy and design measures applied in GMV appear to have had a strong influence on reducing car trips made by residents, however potential remains to increase cycling trips, particularly within the development.

Yet the travel choices of residents within the GMV development could still be improved. About half of residents travel by car for their weekly grocery shopping trip. Increasing the number and diversity of stores located at GMV could encourage more walking and cycling trips within the development as opposed to driving. Eight percent of residents already have groceries delivered; stores could further promote this service to encourage shoppers to leave their cars at home. It is important to ensure that these deliveries are made using sustainable transportation practices. GMV also provides live/work units. However, at the time of the survey in 2005, the presence of these units did not seem to increase the proportion of residents working from home above that of the surrounding area. Promotion of these units and addition of units in Phases 3 and 4 may encourage more residents to work from home. Home offices have the obvious benefit of reducing commute trips. However, some studies have shown an increase in other trips due to the increased flexibility of the work schedule. This is another reason why it is essential to provide amenities within walking distance of residences in order to encourage residents to walk and cycle for their daily needs rather than traveling outside the development by car to access goods and services.

bus

percent of residents

train underground

60%

bicycle walk

40%

20%

0% GMV

Inner London

Outer London

London

(2005)

(2005)

(2005)

(2005)

Rutherfords, 2005; Transport for London Website

sources Figure 5: GMV resident mode of travel for various trip types, 2005 100% car 80%

bus


train underground

60%

bicycle walk

40%

20%

0% work

education

main weekly grocery shopping

other shopping Rutherfords, 2005

Birch, Carolyn (2010). Using Section 106 Agreements to Improve Air Quality, Communities and Local Government, London. Cherry, Alan and Hodkinson, Richard (2009). Millennium Homes Revisited, Ingenia, Issue 41, December 2009. http://www.ingenia.org.uk/ ingenia/issues/issue41/Cherry_Hodkinson.pdf Communication with Kim Smith, Transportation Planning and Strategy Manager, Greenwich Council, May 4, 2010. Communication with Marcello Burbante, Greenwich Millennium Village Ltd. (GMVL), September 3, 2010. Coutryside Properties website, http://www. countryside-properties-corporate.com (accessed September 21, 2010). Department for Communities and Local Government (2004). Contributing to Sustainable

Communities — A New Approach to Planning Obligations, Eland House, London. English Partnerships (2007). Millennium Communities Programme, London. http://www. urbandesigncompendium.co.uk/public/documents/Mill%20Comms%20May%202007.pdf English Partnerships website, http://www. englishpartnerships.co.uk/gmv.htm (accessed June 28, 2010). GMV website, http://www.gmv.gb.com/transport. htm (accessed September 21, 2010). Rutherfords — Highway & Transport Planning (2005). Greenwich Millennium Village: Travel Monitoring Study, 2005 Report, Cambridge. Streetcar website, http://www.streetcar. co.uk/location.aspx?location=633 (accessed September 21, 2010). Transport for London (2008). Central London

Congestion Charging: Impacts Monitoring — Sixth Annual Report, London. Transport for London (2009). Travel in London — Key Trends and Developments Report Number 1, London. Transport for London (2010). Travel in London: Report 2, London. Transport for London website, http://www.tfl.gov. uk/ (accessed September 21, 2010). Image credits Figure 1: http://maps.google.de/maps/ms?hl=en &ie=UTF8&vps=3&jsv=298d&oe=UTF8&msa= 0&msid=116478322990710211544.000491ed99c ace2d3ecac Photo 1: Andrew Sparkes, www.pinholedesign.co.uk Photo 2: Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe Photos 3, 4: Frederique Siegel, ITDP Europe

gwl terrein site facts Developer: Ecoplan Foundation Architect: Kees Christiaanse Population: 1,400 Area: 6 ha Density: 230 persons/ha Residential Units: 600 Construction Began: 1995 Construction Completed: 1998 Distance from City Center: 3 km Cars: 190 cars/1,000 residents Parking Spaces/Residence: 0.20 Non-motorized Mode Share: 80% Public Transport Mode Share: 14% Households with Carsharing: 26%

case study

GWL Terrein amsterdam, the netherlands Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe


GWL Terrein 21

background GWL Terrein is a car-free brownfield redevelopment with limited parking, carsharing provision and good transit access. Non-motorized mode share in the development is much higher than the surrounding area and car use is much lower. GWL Terrein is located in the famously cycling-friendly city of Amsterdam. The project is in the Amsterdam West District, three kilometers from the city center at the terminus of a tram line and the very edge of the late 19th century city extensions. It makes use of a six hectare site formerly used by the municipal water utility, Gemeente Waterleidingen (GWL), from which it gets its name (Photos 1 and 2). Local residents were involved in the design and development of the project. They wanted to push forward with a new approach to development focused on car-free living, reuse of resources, conservation of energy and water, and community cohesion. The inner area of the development is car-free and only emergency vehicles are allowed on site. The original residents were asked to sign a non-obligatory declaration of support for the car-free nature of the site. None of the 600 residential units include parking spaces, however, several on-street parking spaces are located along the edge of the development and a limited number of parking permits are available for residents. GWL Terrein’s environmental and social goals make it a unique place to live. The car-free inner area creates a cleaner, safer place for neighbors to interact and children to play. The focus on energy efficient building design and promotion of sustainable transportation helps reduce the carbon footprint of residents. Furthermore, the work of the residential umbrella organization encourages sustainable living and community involvement. It is no surprise that the development consistently receives high satisfaction ratings from residents, which is further underscored by the fact that 62% of residents have lived in the development for more than eight years (GWL Terrein Website). Once residents move here they don’t seem to want to leave. What began as an idealistic experiment in combining high density housing with green principles appears to have produced a neighborhood its original proponents can be proud of, even ten years later.

key policy and design measures and energy consumption. In addition, it was decided that half of the dwellings would be reserved as renter-occupied, social housing. The other half would be sold, two-thirds of which would be grant-aided owner-occupied dwellings. Furthermore, local residents would have priority in applying for dwellings. The Westerpark Urban District commissioned two architecture firms to create a conceptual plan for the development based on the Urban Planning Schedule of Requirements. In August 1993 the plan made by architect Kees Christiaanse and landscape designer Adriaan Geuze was chosen by a panel consisting of several inhabitants, representatives of the Westerpark Urban District and the project developer. This panel, along with the architect, then collaborated to create an Urban Plan for the development, which was completed in November 1993. The Environmental Advisory Bureau (BOOM) was also involved in the process to ensure that the environmental aspects of the Urban Planning Schedule of Requirements were upheld. Given the strict environmental requirements proposed, private investors were not interested in developing the site. Ultimately five housing associations set up the Ecoplan Foundation as a joint venture to coordinate and finance the development. Future inhabitants continued to be involved in the design process. In 1994, five design teams were created, each with an architect and several inhabitants, to design various sections of the development. Construction took place in three phases, starting in 1995 and ending in 1998 (Photos 2 and 3) (GWL Terrein website).

From the start, GWL Terrein had a focus on reduced car usage and sustainable living. These sentiments came from local residents of the Westerpark District and were supported by the local government. Several policy and design strategies have been incorporated into the site to help actualize this ideal. These are described below.

Urban Design As mentioned, the entire six hectare site of GWL Terrein is car-free. The development consists of 17 buildings along with the renovated pump engine building, which is now home to a café. The buildings are arranged to form a high density perimeter, while the inner areas remain open, including plenty of green public spaces, wide pathways and safe areas for children to play (Photo 4). Street Layout and Design Since cars are not allowed on site, no streets pass through the development. Furthermore, signs are posted at various entrance points, stating that no motorized vehicles are allowed on the site (Photo 5). In order to enforce this, the development is raised from street level so that cars do not have access to the inner area (Photo 6). However, ramped access points are located at certain entrances to the development, and sometimes motorized twowheelers illegally enter the development. Police officers patrol the area to limit these infractions. Van Hallstraat (Photo 7), an arterial street at the eastern border of GWL Terrein, was traffic-calmed in 1999 with on-street parking removed, speed reduced, sidewalks widened and the tram terminus rebuilt and extended (Scheurer 2001). Van Hallstraat also has a brick-colored cycle lane. Near the tram terminus, this cycle lane is bordered by the tram platform and two tram lanes. Beyond the tram lanes are two lanes of traffic, followed by car parking and another cycle lane at the furthest side of the street. For the rest of Van Hallstraat the cycle lane bordering GWL Terrein is protected by a treelined median. Beyond this median are two car lanes. At the far side of the street is a lane for car parking and another cycle path. In this way, cycle lanes are protected from moving traffic either by a row of trees, a tram platform, or a strip of parked cars. Public Space Design A variety of public spaces are available between the buildings, including public green spaces, children’s play areas, shared gardens and mixed use pathways. This is important, since in such a high density development, it is impossible to provide each residential unit with a private yard. Beyond being a more efficient use of space, these shared spaces provide residents with more chances to interact, building their sense of community. An artificial canal effectively divides the development into two parts. To the north is an urban square surrounded by a nine-story residential building with ground floor retail. To the south the site is more garden-oriented with open green spaces and children’s play areas. The children’s play areas are located away from the street and have been praised by many families as being safe places where their children can play near home. In addition, several shared garden allotments are provided; which are surrounded by a protective wall of shrubbery. Within these spaces, residents can rent a garden allotment. The gardens give residents another opportunity to interact

planning process GWL Terrein occupies the former site of the Municipal Water Company. When the water company decided to move, residents of what was then the Westerpark District (now part of the Amsterdam West District) lobbied for the location to become a residential area, while companies operating nearby wanted the location to be zoned for industrial purposes. The residents won out and in 1989 the Amsterdam city council decided to zone the area for housing. Local residents remained actively involved in the decision process and appealed for a car-free eco-district. This idea was also supported by politicians and the local community center. In 1993 the basic principles for the site were described in an Urban Planning Schedule of Requirements (SPvE). The site was to be car-free and aimed to discourage car ownership and use by ensuring good public transport, a safe environment for pedestrians and selecting inhabitants who agreed with the ecological principles of the project. Environmental goals also included reduction in water Figure 1: GWL Terrein site map

with neighbors and also provide residents with a sense of ownership for the public spaces. The area does not have any dedicated cycle lanes, but rather provides wide, mixed use pathways (shared by pedestrians and cyclists). One perspective is that this mix of uses can actually improve safety because both cyclists and pedestrians are more aware of their surroundings, looking out for fellow travelers rather than assuming that paths will be segregated. Land Use Planning and Design The site contains a few renovated historical buildings and the GWL water tower, which acts as a landmark of the district, surrounded by blocks of high density housing, designed by five different design teams, but all with a similar color scheme to bring cohesion to the development. One elongated, 186-meter long, high-rise apartment building with nine stories runs along Waterpootweg Street, the eastern border of the development (see Figure 1). Another elongated apartment complex runs along the north and northeastern borders of the site. This building structure helps to create enclosed areas within the development without applying gates or barriers between GWL Terrein and other neighborhoods. To the east, GWL Terrein is open and pathways connect the development to the 19th century neighborhoods. Overall 17 apartment buildings are located on-site. As many dwellings as possible have an entrance at street level and access to either a private ground floor garden, a rooftop garden or an open terrace. Incorporated into these residential buildings are ground floor commercial uses, live/work units, housing for persons with mental disabilities, senior housing and wheelchair accessible housing (Photo 8). Most of the apartments have 3-4 rooms with an average of 3.44 rooms per home. This is higher than the average for the Westerpark District of 2.64 rooms per home. The average home value is also higher in GWL Terrein. In 2005 the average home value in GWL Terrein was 256,000€ versus 172,000 € for the Westerpark District. The larger size of residential units and higher quality housing are attractive features for families. Furthermore, 55% of residential units are owner-occupied and 45% are renter-occupied. Of the rented units, 60% are social housing. Several other uses are also located on the site such as the Westerpark Community Center. The water company’s pumping station was restored and the old engine room is now home to Café Amsterdam, a popular restaurant which attracts many visitors to the district (Photo 9). The remaining space in the historic pumping station was converted to offices and a gym. Overall, 50 businesses are located at GWL Terrein (many of them home businesses) employing 216 people (GWL Terrein Website). The mix of uses provides residents with shopping, entertainment and employment options within their own neighborhood. In addition, several grocery stores, shops, pharmacies and cafes are located in the surrounding neighborhoods so that residents do not have to go far to run their daily errands, which can easily be done by bicycle or walking.

Public Transportation GWL Terrein is well served by public transportation. Tram line 10 was extended and terminates just outside the development at the Van Halstraat station (Photo 10). The tram lanes are segregated from car


GWL Terrein 23

1 GWL Terrein before redevelopment

3 GWL Terrein development

4 Children playing near GWL Terrein’s main landmark, the watertower

2 GWL Terrein after redevelopment

5 No motorized vehicles are allowed in GWL Terrein


GWL Terrein 25

6

8

Bollards and raised curbs prevent motor vehicles from entering.

Many ground floor units are reserved for seniors and the disabled and have ramped access for wheelchairs.

9 Café Amsterdam

7 Family cycling on Van Hallstraat Half of all trips made in GWL Terrein are by bike.

10 Tram 10 at Van Hallstraat Station


GWL Terrein 27

traffic lanes which helps to increase tram speeds. The tram runs at 10-minute intervals. In addition, two bus lines serve the development. Bus line 21 provides service to Central Station every 10 minutes. Bus line 60 provides service to Sloterdijk Station every 10 minutes. A variety of transit ticket types are available for travel within the city of Amsterdam. Public transportation users can buy a one-hour ticket, or daily tickets, good for unlimited travel within Amsterdam by tram, bus or metro. Seasonal passes are also available including weekly, monthly and annual passes. The fares for these passes are zone-based and discounts are available for youth and seniors. All ticket types and passes can be loaded onto the recently implemented OV-chipkaart, a contactless smartcard that must be swiped upon entering and exiting the public transport vehicle or station. In addition, smartcard users may choose to pay based on the distance they travel. The OV-chipkaart can be used on all public transportation throughout the Netherlands, although fares may vary depending on the region. (GVB Website)

therefore first-come-first-served. The spaces are metered, costing three Euros per hour (versus five Euros per hour for on-street parking in central Amsterdam). Residential parking permits for these spaces cost 16 Euros per month, which is much cheaper than hourly parking, however these permits are extremely limited. Only 110 parking permits, representing 18% of households, are available for GWL Terrein residents and those on the waitlist may wait up to seven years for a permit. Residents of GWL Terrein do not qualify for residential parking permits in the nearby neighborhoods, but some residents have been known to “borrow” parking permits in order to park their cars in the surrounding areas (GWL Terrein Website). A 480-space parking lot is located nearby which charges 3 Euros per hour for parking up to a maximum of 30 Euros per day. A variety of parking subscriptions are also available which range from 98 to 295 Euros per month (QPark Website).

Carsharing Five carsharing vehicles are located in the parking spaces on the boarder of the development, belonging to two carsharing organizations: Greenwheels and Diks. Since one of the main goals of the development is to reduce car ownership, provision of carsharing is important to give residents access to a car without having to own one. The vehicles are very popular among residents. Over a quarter of households have a carsharing membership (ITDP Europe 2010). Information about the two carsharing companies can be seen in Table 1.

Parking Parking for the development is extremely limited. None of the residential units have parking spaces on-site. 129 on-street parking spaces are located on the west side of the district, five of which are reserved for carsharing vehicles and two for persons with disabilities. The remaining 122 spaces, equating to 0.2 spaces per residential unit, are part of the city’s public parking supply and are

Table 1: Information about carsharing companies in GWL Terrein Diks

Greenwheels

Deposit

50 €

225 €

Monthly subscription fee

25 €

Ranges from 5–25 €

Fee per km

0.12 €

0.10 €

Hourly fee

2.75 €

2.50 €

Discounts available

None

Discount with Dutch Railway card (NS card)

Company membership option

No

Yes

Number of cars available at GWL Terrein Location

3

2

Development Management and Governance The umbrella organization Koepelvereniging was created in 1996 to promote the original intentions of the development and to encourage community cohesion. The organization is funded through small fees from residents and the housing associations. Today Koepelvereniging is the one body that unifies the entire development. The organization has a website and a newsletter for residents and holds about six meetings per year to discuss community issues such as safety, maintenance and community events. The organization also employs a concierge, who is available on-site to answer questions from residents, performs minor repairs and enforces the car-free restriction (including keeping delivery vehicles from entering the development). Residents are very involved in the organization and help to plan community events, such as an annual soccer tournament held each June, followed by a community dinner (GWL Terrein Website). These efforts help to give residents a sense of community and enhanced focus on the environmental goals of the development.

Car-free Declaration Initial proponents of the development had hoped to actually ban car ownership among residents, but this was not allowed. As an alternative, Ecoplan asked the initial residents of GWL Terrein to sign a non-obligatory declaration of support for the car-free nature of the site. This declaration did not require residents to live car-free, but informed them of the intention of the development. The declaration reminded residents that GWL Terrein is different from other neighborhoods. Parking in the area is difficult for a reason and sustainable forms of transportation are encouraged. Furthermore, the declaration attempted to provide residents with an enhanced feeling of community and the idea that they were involved in a unique experiment in sustainable living. However, new residents no longer go through Ecoplan. New renters are selected either by one of the five housing associations, which typically do not require a car-free declaration to be signed, or by current owners, who may freely sell their property to anyone they choose. For this reason, the umbrella organization Koepelvereniging has developed a document for new residents, explaining the goals and concepts of the project. The organization

also provides advice related to sustainability and car-free living. Therefore, while new residents are no longer asked to state that they agree with the ideals of the project, they are still made aware of the project’s original intentions.

quantitative analysis GWL Terrein is located in one of the world’s leading cycling cities. The City of Amsterdam has implemented many policies to encourage cycling and walking and to reduce car use such as improved bicycle infrastructure, extensive bicycle parking facilities, robust police enforcement to prevent bicycle theft, increased bicycle use education to increase bicycle safety, reduced speed limits to improve safety and increased parking prices to reduce car use (Daniel van Motman, pers. comm.). However, efforts at GWL Terrein go even further. GWL Terrein residents have a 50% bicycle mode share, compared with the already high 30% in the rest of the city, further reducing the carbon footprint of residents. A comparison of statistics for GWL Terrein, Amsterdam West and the city of Amsterdam can be seen in Table 2.

Density GWL Terrein is about three times as dense as Amsterdam West, the district in which it is located, and more than five times as dense as the city of Amsterdam. It is even more dense than what is required for new growth, or Vinex, locations in the Netherlands (see Vinex Locations sidebar, p. 50). Vinex locations are required to have at least 30 homes per hectare, while GWL Terrein has 100 homes per hectare. Higher densities enable more efficient use of resources, which can contribute to reductions in carbon footprint.

Parking Parking at GWL Terrein is extremely limited with only 0.20 spaces per residential unit, compared to the already low 0,72 spaces in the rest of the city. Reducing the availability of parking spaces contributes to reduced car ownership rate.

http://www.diks.net/ autodate-tekst.html, http://www.greenwheels.nl

Table 2: GWL Terrein compared to surrounding areas Figure 2: Mode of travel for residents as compared to surrounding area Population

1,400

Amsterdam West

Amsterdam

77,510

757,000

Area (ha)

6

990

22,000


230

78

34

Number of residential units

600

na

390,000


190

310

370

Bikes per 1,000 residents

1,300

na

730

Car parking spaces / residential unit

0.20

na

0.72

Car

6%

20%

28%

Public transit

14%

18%

18%

Bicycle

50%

32%

29%

100% car 80%

Mode share for all trips

Walking

public transport bicycle

percent of trips

GWL Terrein

walking

60%

walk /cycle 40%

20%

30%

30%

25%

0%

City of Amsterdam; ITDP Europe, 2010

GWL Terrein

GWL Terrein

(2001)

(2010)

Amsterdam West

Amsterdam West

(2000)

(2008)

Amsterdam

Amsterdam

(2000)

(2008)

City of Amsterdam, ITDP Europe, 2010; Scheurer, 2001


GWL Terrein 29

Figure 4: Average transport-related emissions of residents

Figure 3: Mode of travel to work 1500 annual transport-related emissions per resident (kg CO2)

100% car 80%

public transport


bicycle walking

60%

1311 1200 899

900 600 358 300 0

40%

GWL Terrein

Amsterdam

Netherlands

(2010)

(2008)

(2007)

Author’s elaboration

20%

0% GWL Terrein

Amsterdam

(2010)

(2008)

City of Amsterdam; ITDP Europe, 2010

Figure 5: Importance of various factors on GWL resident decision not to own a car

Car and Bicycle Ownership Rates In 2001 there were 172 cars per 1,000 residents in GWL Terrein (Scheurer 2001). A more recent, internet-based survey of GWL Terrein residents conducted by ITDP Europe in 2010 found that this number is slightly higher today at 190 cars per 1,000 residents (ITDP Europe 2010), still far less than the 310 cars per 1,000 residents in Amsterdam West and about half of the 370 cars per 1,000 residents of Amsterdam (City of Amsterdam). Furthermore, 15% of households surveyed gave up a car after moving to GWL Terrein. The number of bicycles owned per resident has not changed significantly. The 2001 survey found 1,346 bicycles per 1,000 residents, while the current survey found 1,300 bicycles per 1,000 residents. Indeed, nearly half of all respondents said that there were more than three bicycles owned by their household, and only 2% of respondents said that their household had no bikes (ITDP Europe 2010).

Mode Split These policy and design measures have worked. The survey found that half of all trips taken by GWL Terrein residents are made by bike and 30% are made on foot, while only 6% are made by car (Figure 2). The share of bike trips in GWL Terrein (50%) is much higher than that for Amsterdam West (32%) and Amsterdam (29%). Furthermore, a far smaller share of trips are made by car in GWL Terrein (6%) than in West Amsterdam (20%) or Amsterdam (28%). The total share of non-motorized trips has increased slightly in Amsterdam West between 2000 and 2008 (from 59% to 62%). The share of non-motorized trips has not changed in the city of Amsterdam (54%) during the same time span, however 4% of trips have shifted from walking to cycling. By contrast, the share of nonmotorized trips in GWL Terrein has increased 7% between 2001 and 2010 (from 73% to 80%). It is also interesting to compare the mode split for different types of trips. In GWL Terrein 63% of residents travel to work by bike versus 32% for Amsterdam (Figure 3). Likewise, a smaller percent of GWL Terrein residents travel to work by car (9%) than Amsterdam residents (33%). 94% of GWL Terrein survey respondents said that they do their grocery shopping by bike, 85% conduct other shopping

bike makes car superfluous

by bike, 93% run service-related errands (banking, doctor visits, etc.) by bike and 94% visit family and friends in Amsterdam by bike (ITDP Europe 2010). These statistics overwhelmingly show that cycling is the main mode of transport for residents of GWL Terrein. While the mode share of public transportation is no higher among GWL Terrein residents than Amsterdam residents, GWL Terrein residents still consider it an important option and most residents use public transit at least once per week. In 2001 it was found that 39% of residents had some sort of periodic public transit pass, although the type of pass varied (Scheurer 2001). The 2010 survey found that this number had increased to 46% of residents (ITDP Europe 2010). This is even higher than for the city of Amsterdam, where 19% of residents have a periodic transit pass (City of Amsterdam). Reduced travel distances also contribute to reduced carbon footprint. GWL’s location gives residents easy access to the city center, where many jobs are located. Indeed, 44% of residents travel less than 5 kilometers to work, and only 12% travel 40 kilometers or more. Additionally, more than three-fourths of residents travel less than one kilometer to get to their grocery store (ITDP Europe 2010). Having close access to destinations such as work and grocery stores encourages travel by bike and walking and reduces kilometers driven. Therefore, it is not surprising that transport-related emissions of GWL Terrein residents are less than half that of an average Amsterdam resident and one-third that of an average resident of the Netherlands, as seen in Figure 4. These estimates are based on annual kilometers traveled by residents by private and public transportation (for the year indicated), as well as estimates of emissions rates of these vehicles.

lessons learned The GWL Terrein development includes many features that make it unique among neighborhoods in Amsterdam and encourage sustainable living. The context of the surrounding area and city also have a strong impact on the travel behavior of its residents. The extensive

public transit makes car superfluous environmental reasons healthier lifestyle too expensive difficult to find parking near residence 1 not important

2

3

4 very important ITDP Europe, 2010

network of bicycle paths and efficient public transportation system in the city of Amsterdam allow residents of GWL Terrein to easily travel to other parts of the city using these modes. When non-carowners were asked to rank the importance of different factors in their decision not to own a car, residents gave higher importance ratings to pull measures such as ease of bicycle and public transport use and lower importance ratings to push measures such as expense of owning a car and limited parking (see Figure 5). Also, GWL Terrein’s location close to the city center has an effect on travel distances of residents. Therefore, it would appear that a new development

project in a city with a focus on sustainable transportation, especially located near the center of the city, could have more potential for success than one located in a car-focused city or far from the city center. Furthermore, Koepelvereniging, the residents’ umbrella organization, seems to be an important catalyst for maintaining resident focus on sustainability, reduced car use and social interaction. It also gives residents a common source to turn to with questions or concerns about the development. Such an organization is recommended for other sites planning to implement a sustainability-focused community.

sources

Communication with Corine Marseille, Koepelvereniging organization, May 2010. Communication with Daniel van Motman, Department of Traffic Infrastructure and Transport, City of Amsterdam, May 2010. Communication with Hans Niepoth, City of Amsterdam, June 2010. GVB Website, http://www.gvb.nl (accessed June 10, 2010). GWL Terrein Website, http://www.gwl-terrein. nl/?english (accessed June 10, 2010).

ITDP Europe (2010). Interned-based survey of GWL Terrein residents. QPark Website, http://www.q-park.nl/tabid/657/ qparkParkingLocatorvw1094/parkingDetail/ ParkingID/613/language/nl-NL/Default.aspx (accessed June 10, 2010) Scheurer, Jan (2001). Urban Ecology, Innovations in Housing Policy and the Future of Cities: Towards Sustainability in Neighbourhood Communities, Thesis: Murdoch University, Perth Western, Australia.

Image credits Figure 1: Koepelvereniging Photo 1: Koepelvereniging Photo 2: Peter Elenbaas Photos 3, 5–10: Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe Photo 4: Giesbert Nijhuis

hammarby sjöstad site facts

case study

Developer: Multiple * Architect: Jan Inghe-Hagström # Population: 17,000 Projected Population: 24,000 Developed Area: 130 ha Total Area: 160 ha Current Density: 131 persons/ha Projected Density: 150 persons/ha Current Residential Units: 8,000 Projected Residential Units: 11,000 Construction Began: 1999 Planned Completion: 2017 Distance from City Center: 3 km Cars: 210 cars/1,000 residents Parking Spaces/Residence: 0.65 Non-motorized Mode Share: 27% Public Transport Mode Share: 52% Households with Carsharing: 18% *O ver 30 developers; key developers are JM, Skanska, Family Housing, Swedish Housing, HSB, SKB and Borätt. # J an Inghe-Hagström designed the strategic

masterplan. Other architecture firms involved include: White Architects, Nyréns Architect Firm, and Erséus.

Hammarby Sjöstad stockholm, sweden Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe


Hammarby Sjöstad 33

background Hammarby Sjöstad is a brownfield redevelopment with mixed uses, carsharing, bikesharing, good transit access and high quality bicycle infrastructure. Car use and transport-related emissions are lower in the development than in comparable reference districts or the city as a whole. Hammarby Sjöstad is recognized around the globe for having implemented an integrated approach to district planning incorporating sustainable resource use, ecological design and low-carbon transport. The 160 hectare district was built on a former industrial and harbor brownfield area located on the south side of Hammarby Lake, three kilometers south of the Stockholm city center (Photos 1 and 2). The redevelopment has its roots in Stockholm’s bid to host the 2004 Olympics. Hammarby Sjöstad was meant to be part of an ecological Olympic Village. Although Stockholm did not win the bid, planning moved forward and construction of the project began in 1999, converting the site from a run-down industrial area into a modern, environmentally sustainable, mixed-use district with good public transit connections. So far, 130 of the total 160 hectares have been developed including 8,000 residential units that now house some 17,000 residents. By 2017 the City anticipates the development will be complete with 11,000 residential units and 24,000 inhabitants (City of Stockholm Website). Hammarby Sjöstad’s success can be attributed to strong environmental goals that shaped the development plan, incorporating land use, transportation, building materials, energy, water and sewage, and solid waste. All of the authorities and administrations normally involved in the development process collaborated to create a plan and conceptual approach to the project with a focus on sustainable resource use. The implementation of a holistic environmental profile for a whole district was a new concept when plans began in 1996. The city imposed strict environmental requirements on buildings, technical installations and the traffic environment. The goal was to

halve the environmental impact compared to a typical development built in the 1990’s. The goals related to transportation in Hammarby Sjöstad were (Fränne 2007): ·· 80% of residents’ and workers’ journeys made by public transport, bike or foot by 2010 ·· At least 15% of households having carsharing memberships by 2010 ·· At least 5% of workplaces having carsharing memberships by 2010 ·· 100% of heavy transportation by vehicles meeting environmental zone requirements

planning process The planning and design of this project was made easier because the City had acquired most of the land in Hammarby Sjöstad. The local authority took leadership at every stage from development of the masterplan to construction, spurred on by the City’s sustainability program which includes targets for decontamination, use of brownfield land, provision of public transport options in order to discourage car use, energy consumption, water conservation and recycling. In addition, since all planning applications in Stockholm are based on life-cycle cost analysis, it was easier for the development to justify higher initial investments in better performing building design and transportation infrastructure. The first step in the planning process was the development of the strategic masterplan, led by architect Jan Inghe-Hagström, at the Stockholm City Planning Bureau. The plan is divided into 12 subneighborhoods, which are being developed in phases. A process called “parallel sketches” is being used in which the City selects three to four architects/planners in the private sector to draw up detailed proposals

for a sub-neighborhood. The city evaluates each of the sketches and combines the best features to create the agreed upon masterplan. The city planning and design team then prepares a design code for each sub-neighborhood in partnership with the developers and architects. This design code is included in the development agreement between the developer and the City. The design code is taken through the local authority political process in order to grant planning permission; the code provides an overview of the layout, form, and structure of each block including key landmark buildings, public spaces and pedestrian routes. In order to provide architectural diversity, and to inspire higher standards of design through competition, a consortium of developers and architects are then invited by the City to develop each plot or individual building within the sub-neighborhood, according to the design code. So far over 30 different developers and more than 30 architects have been identified. Key developers are JM, Skanska, Family Housing, Swedish Housing, HSB, SKB and Borätt (CABE Website).

key policy and design measures The integration of transportation and land use planning was recognized as a key component affecting the sustainability of the project. Expansion of the district has been complemented by transport investments including increased bus service, cycle paths, pedestrian bridges, ferry service, and an extension of the tram line. Development has been focused on a dense settlement structure, concentrated along main transit corridors. In order to discourage car use, parking in the area is limited and is priced. Key policy and design strategies applied are described below. Substantial investments were made in public transport in the area, including an extension of the Tvärbanan tram line (Line 22), which runs through Hammarby Sjöstad with four stops in the district (see Figure 1 and Photo 3). The line operates from 5:30am to 1:00am. This orbital line incorporates several features which enhance quality of service, including level-boarding at stations (Photo 4), which

allows easier access to the trains, and message boards providing real-time arrival information of the next trains. In addition to the tram line, two bus routes serve the area. The tram line serves a whopping one third of all trips made by residents (Brick 2008). Figure 2 shows a dramatic growth in ridership on the Tvärbanan line after the introduction of the central Stockholm congestion charge in 2006. Hammarby Sjöstad lies just outside of the central Stockholm congestion zone. This increase in ridership demonstrates the effectiveness of combining push (congestion pricing) and pull (improved transit) methods to shift travelers from cars to more sustainable modes. The Gullmarsplan Tunnelbanan (metro) station lies just outside the border of Hammarby Sjöstad. This station serves the T17, T18 and T19 (metro) lines and provides direct service to central Stockholm at 7-8 minute frequencies during peak hours. The station also serves as a multi-modal transfer facility with connections to the Tvärbanan tram line and numerous bus lines. In addition to providing convenient access, fare structure can also help drive public transport use. Public transport tickets in Stockholm County are integrated and zone-based. The same ticket can be used on the bus, tram or metro, improving ease of transfers. Several ticket options are offered from single tickets to annual travelcards, all with both regular and reduced prices. An integrated smartcard called SL Access has recently been implemented. Transit tickets and passes can be loaded onto this smartcard. An SL Business Card is also available for employees of participating companies. Through this program, the employee is given a travelcard at a discounted price, and the cost is deducted from his salary; the employer pays social security contributions. This is a way for companies to encourage employees to use public transport. Another feature aimed to improve ease of ticket purchase is an innovative option which allows passengers to purchase a transit ticket through a text message on a cell phone. The ticket will appear on the cell phone screen and must be shown to the bus operator upon boarding (SL Website). A ferry service was introduced which transports passengers from Hammarby Sjöstad to the Stockholm city center and to

Multimodal Transit Station Ferry Terminal

Figure 2: Ridership on the Tvärbanan line (tram)

Tram & Bus

60,000

Bikesharing 50,000

On-road Bicycle Segregated Bicycle Path Tram Route

passengers per day

Carsharing

40,000

2006: Stockholm congestion charging begins

30,000

Pedestrian

20,000 2003

2004

2005

2006 year

Figure 1: Map of Hammarby Sjöstad

* data recorded each year on an average winter day

2007

2008

2009 Blomquist, 2010



Sodermalm, an island located between Hammarby Sjöstad and the city center (Photo 5). More information about these two ferry lines is summarized in Table 1. Ferry service is run by the city of Stockholm. Bicycles can be taken on board all ferries and ferry terminals are located near bicycle lanes, providing an easy transition between bike and ferry. Studies have suggested that introduction of the ferry service has contributed to an increase in the use of bicycles and walking to/from Hammarby Sjöstad and that as much as 24% of travelers use the ferry for some portion of their trip (Brick 2008).

Cycling and Pedestrian Infrastructure One goal was for Hammarby Sjöstad to be a healthy place for people to live; that offers opportunities for exercise, sports and culture. Numerous bike paths, pedestrian paths and footbridges (Photos 6, 7, 8 and 9; Figure 1) were built to meet this goal. Many of the paths provide an opportunity for scenic strolls along picturesque canals and through a variety of green spaces. The bicycle lanes also enable improved mobility, running along thoroughfares such as Lugnets Allé and Hammarby Allé . Providing safe, accessible bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is important to both encourage healthy activities, but also to promote use of non-motorized forms of transport.

Bike Sharing Bike sharing programs are being implemented around the world to make cycling in cities more accessible. These systems are often complemented by investments in bicycle infrastructure, providing safe spaces for users to ride. The bikesharing concept consists of providing public bicycles, available from docking stations spread throughout the city, for the purpose of travel. The bikesharing program in Stockholm, called Stockholm City Bikes, began in 2006 and is operated by Clear Channel Communications. The company holds similar bikesharing programs in France (Rennes, Caen, Dijon and Perpignan) as well as in Barcelona, Oslo and Milan. There currently 85 docking stations citywide, and one in Hammarby Sjöstad (Photo 10). At each station, spaces for 9 to

24 bicycles are available. The actual number of bikes available at any time depends on the number currently in use and the bicycle distribution patterns of users. Once the program is fully implemented, there will be 2,500 bicycles at 200 locations throughout Stockholm. Bike share in Stockholm operates from April to October. Bikes may be picked up between 6:00am and 10:00pm, users can take the bike for up to three hours, after which they must pay a penalty. A membership and rental card are required for use. Two types of cards are available. A seasonal card may be purchased online for 200 sek (21€) or at a retailer for 250 sek (26€). A three-day card must be purchased at a retailer and costs 125 sek (13€) (City of Stockholm). There is now an option to add a Stockholm City Bike membership to an SL Access smartcard.

Car Sharing There are currently 37 low emissions carsharing cars with dedicated parking spaces located in Hammarby Sjöstad, belonging to three different car sharing organizations: Sunfleet Carsharing, Bilpoolen, and CityCarClub. According to a survey of residents in 2010, 18% of households have a carsharing membership (ITDP Europe 2010). In 2008, 100 companies located in Hammarby Sjöstad were reported as having a car sharing membership (City of Stockholm Website).

Parking Hammarby Sjöstad has approximately 0.15 on-street parking spaces per household, and an estimated 0.55 spaces per household in public or private garages. The supply of parking is not evenly spread and in some parts of the district the practical parking supply will be much lower. Overall Hammarby Sjöstad has 0.65 parking spaces per household. On-street parking in Hammarby Sjöstad is regulated in the same way as for the rest of the inner city. There is a charge to park between 9:00am and 5:00pm on weekdays (Photo 11). Evening and night time parking is free. Off-street parking is mainly operated by Stockholm Parkering, the city’s parking company, which owns a

number of garages and off-street parking lots in Hammarby Sjöstad. Additionally, a number of the housing co-operatives own their own parking and set their own prices for residents and there are also a few private car park operators. Table 2 shows the parking prices for Stockholm Parkering. The prices for off-street parking are comparable to other areas just outside the inner city, but a little lower than typical prices inside the inner city. Typically charging more for on-street parking spaces than for off-street spaces encourages long-term parkers to park off-street and maintains a larger number of on-street spaces available for short-term parkers, who have a faster turnover. Hammarby Sjöstad’s parking pricing structure does not follow this strategy and it is recommended to raise on-street parking prices.

Urban Design The layout of Hammarby Sjöstad was designed to integrate transportation, amenities and public spaces. The spine of the district is a 37.5 meter wide boulevard and transit corridor, which connects key transport nodes and public focal points, and creates a natural focus for activity and commerce (Figure 3). Street Layout and Design Two main thoroughfares, Lugnets Allé and Hammarby Allé, run through the district. These streets include tram lines in the middle of the street with boarding platforms on the outside. Beyond the boarding platforms there is one car lane in each direction and outside the car lanes are bicycle lanes followed by parking spaces and then pedestrian walkways. The bike lanes are painted on the street and

Table 1: Summary of Hammarby Sjöstad ferry service Ferry destination

Travel time to destination

Sodermalm

5 minutes

Nybroviken (Central Stockholm)

25 minutes

Operating months

Hours of operation

Cost

10 – 15 minutes

Year round

06:00 to midnight

Free

1 hour

May 31 – October 1

Weekdays: 07:30 – 17:30 Weekends: 09:30 – 18:30

Regular fare: 40 sek (4.3 €) Discount fare: 25 sek (2.7 €) Children under 13: free

Frequency

http://www.ressel. se/index.asp

Table 2: Parking prices in Hammarby Sjöstad Time period

On-street parking

Off-street outdoor parking

Off-street garage parking

Per hour

15 sek (1.5 €)

12-15 sek (1.2-1.5 €)

20 sek (2 €)

Per day (24hr)

50 sek (5 €) *

60-80 sek (6-8 €)

100 sek (10 €)

Overnight

—

—

60 sek (6 €)

Monthly

700 sek (73 €) *

750 sek (78 €)

1,100 – 1,500 sek (110 – 160 €)

Yearly

8,400 v (870 €) *

9,000 sek (940 €)

13,200 – 18,000 sek (1,370 – 1,870 €)

* with residential parking permit

City of Stockholm, Traffic Administration

Figure 3: Hammarby Sjöstad Site Map

cars must pass over the bike lane in order to park. Pedestrian priority is given on the main streets, complemented by speed restrictions and frequent zebra crossings. A cross section view demonstrating the layout of Hammarby Allé can be seen in Photo 12. Public Space Design A network of varied parks, green spaces, quays, plazas and walkways runs through the district, providing space for outdoor activities. All public spaces are owned and maintained by the city of Stockholm Photo 13).The initial goal for the development was to provide 25 square meters of public green space per apartment unit, for a total of 300,000 square meters in the district. So far a total of 280,000 square meters has been completed. The development also has a goal to provide 15 square meters of private courtyard space per apartment unit. (City of Stockholm Website) Land Use Planning and Design The general building layout of Hammarby Sjöstad is blocks built around an inner courtyard. The entire development is high density, but with the highest densities focused along the transit corridor, where buildings are 7-8 stories high. The average height of buildings in the district is 18 meters, or 6 stories. Safety on the streets is enhanced by providing a variety of ground floor uses, and facing balconies and front doors onto the street in order to increase “eyes on the street.” The architectural style utilizes contemporary sustainability technologies and follows modern architectural principles, maximizing use of daylight and providing views of water and green spaces.



1 Hammarby Sjöstad before redevelopment

3 Tvarbanan line tram stop The tram line was extended to serve Hammarby Sjöstad and now carries 33% of trips made by residents there.

4 Level boarding on Tvarbanan tram Level boarding is one example of the high-quality features of the tram system, which also include long hours of service and real-time arrival information in stations and connections to Metro and bus lines.

2 Hammarby Sjöstad today

5 Ferry terminal Ferries connect residents to the city center. Bikes are allowed onboard and the ferry terminal is reachable by bikeways.



6 Pedestrian pathways

7 One of Hammarby Sjöstad’s many bicycle and pedestrian bridges

8 Canal-side bicycle path

9 Bicycle path separated from motorized traffic



10

13 plaza in Hammarby Sjöstad

One of Stockholm’s 85 bikeshare stations is located in Hammarby Sjöstad.

A network of parks, green spaces, quays and walkways runs throughout the development.

11

Hammarby Sjöstad has .15 on-street parking spaces per household, parking is charged during the day and free at night.

14 Hammarby Sjöstad café 12

Hammarby Allë, one of Hammarby Sjöstad’s two main thoroughfares, with center-running tram lines, driving lanes, bike lanes, parking and sidewalks. Pedestrians have priority.

Hammarby Sjöstad has over 100 retail units and restaurants as well as office space and some light industrial uses, employing over 5,000 people and providing convenient services for local residents.



Table 5: Hammarby Sjöstad as compared to nearby and surrounding areas

stockholm disability program

In 2004, the Stockholm Local Council adopted the Disability Policy Program whose aim was to make Stockholm the most accessible city in the world by 2010. To reach this goal, the document enlists a series of wide scale measures to be undertaken. In the transportation sector, the program recommends removing all physical barriers that can easily be removed. This includes widening doorways and installing handrails in public transport stations and providing level boarding of transit vehicles. The program also stipulates that all public authorities and private companies need to integrate financing of these measures into their budgets. The goal is to provide better access to disabled persons and, consequently, enhance democracy and social equity among all Stockholmers. Due to its goal of becoming an exemplary district for the future, Hammarby Sjöstad has paid special attention to satisfying these requirements (City of Stockholm 2005).

The residential units include a mix of tenures; 46% of the units are rented and 54% are owned. Most of the apartment units have one or two bedrooms, as seen in Table 3. In addition, the development has 59 apartments with 24-hour care for the elderly, 30 apartment units where assisted residential care is provided and 400 student flats. The planning department recognized the importance of providing a mix of uses in order to ensure that residents have access to goods and services within walking distance. Therefore, the city initially offered a two-year rent-free subsidy in order to attract commercial operators and to ensure that service provision was established during the early phases of the development (CABE Website). This strategy was successful and today the area includes nearly 100 retail units and restaurants as well as office space and light industrial uses, employing over 5,000 people (Photo 14). In addition, at least five food stores are located throughout the development and no one lives more than one kilometer from a grocery store. The mix of uses in Hammarby Sjöstad includes the following institutional uses: twelve pre-schools (for ages 1–5), three primary schools (for ages 6–16), two high schools, a library, a cultural center, a chapel, an environmental center, childcare facilities and healthcare centers. A breakdown of the area of the various land uses can be seen in Table 4. (City of Stockholm Website)

Hammarby Sjöstad

Sundbyberg

Inner City Stockholm

Population

17,000

37,700

308,900

829,400

Area (ha)

130 *

900

3,500

18,700


131

42

88

44

Average income (sek/year)

356,000

272,000

na

293,000

Jobs per resident

0.3

0.5

na

na

Cars per 1000 residents

210

295

na

370

Car parking spaces/residential unit

0.65

na

0.65

0.65

Car

21%

44%

17%

32%

Public transit

52%

20%

36%

30%

Bicycle/ walking

27%

36%

47%

38%

Mode share for all trips

Figure 4: Mode of travel for Hammarby Sjöstad compared to reference and surrounding areas 100% car 80%

Studios

9%

1 Bedroom

35%

2 Bedrooms

32%

3 Bedrooms

21%

4 Bedrooms

2%

5+ Bedrooms

< 1% City of Stockholm

Table 4: Planned breakdown of land uses in Hammarby Sjöstad Area (ha)

Percent of Total Area

Residential

90

56%

Public green space

30

19%

Other

40

25%

Total land area

160

100%

In order to quantify the benefits of the sustainability measures implemented in Hammarby Sjöstad, it is important to look at the development in the context of its location. Hammarby Sjöstad is located in one of the most progressive cities in the world with regard to sustainability. Stockholm is the winner of the European Green Capital city competition for 2010. The city has reduced carbon emissions by 25% per resident since 1990 and has established a target of reducing emissions from today’s 4 tonnes of CO2 per capita to 3 tonnes in 2015. These values are extremely low for developed countries, considering the entire country of Sweden has an average emission rate of 6 tonnes of CO2 per capita, the average for Europe is 8 tonnes per capita and the average for the United States is 20 tonnes per capita (EIA). The City of Stockholm has recognized the connection between land use planning and transport and has taken many measures to steer development in the direction of a dense settlement structure, complemented by investments in public transportation, cycling and pedestrian infrastructure. Furthermore, the city has successfully implemented a city-center congestion charge.

Density

City of Stockholm

Hammarby Sjöstad compares favorably with Stockholm, which stacks up extremely favorably against most of the rest of the world. Compared to both the inner city of Stockholm and the City of Stockholm itself, Hammarby Sjöstad has a higher population density, as seen in Table 5. The provision of on-street parking is lower for Hammarby Sjöstad than for the city; however, the provision of off-street parking is higher, bringing the total to 0.65 spaces per residential unit for both Hammarby Sjöstad and the city as a whole.

Car Ownership Rates We also compared Hammarby Sjöstad to the municipality of Sundbyberg, a five kilometers to the northwest of the Stockholm city

public transit walk /cycle

percent of trips

Area (ha)

City of Stockholm; City of Sundbyberg; Blomquist, 2010); ITDP Europe, 2010

* current developed area

quantitative comparison Table 3: Breakdown of residential unit size in Hammarby Sjöstad

City of Stockholm

60%

40%

20%

0% Hammarby Sjöstad

Reference District

(2007)

(2007)

Sundyberg (2006)

Inner City Stockholm

City of Stockholm

(2006)

(2006)

Brick, 2008; Blomquist, 2010

center which also has good public transit availability. Car ownership per resident is quite low in Sundbyberg (295 cars per 1,000 residents) and is even lower in Hammarby Sjöstad (210 cars per 1,000 residents). These values are both smaller than for the City of Stockholm (370 cars per 1,000 residents), which is already low by international standards in developed countries. These and other statistics are summarized in Table 5. In addition, bicycle ownership is quite high in Hammarby Sjöstad at 820 bikes per 1,000 residents (ITDP Europe 2010).

Mode Split The policy and design measures employed in Hammarby Sjöstad have proven effective. Only 21% of trips made by Hammarby Sjöstad residents are by car, while 52% are by public transportation, and 27% by non-motorized modes. The percent of non-motorized trips (27%) is still not quite as high as for those in Sundbyberg (36%), Inner City

Stockholm (47%), or the city as a whole (38%), as seen in Figure 4. This may be due to the high concentration of jobs in Sundbyberg and Inner Stockholm, making it possible for residents of these areas to cycle or walk to work nearby. However, compared to a reference district without integrated policy and design measures, Hammarby Sjöstad has a higher percent of trips made by bike (9%) and on foot (18%) than the reference district’s share of bike trips (7%) and walking trips (8%), as seen in Figure 5. In addition, Hammarby Sjöstad has a much higher share of trips made by public transit (52%) than Sundbyberg (20%), Inner City Stockholm (36%) or the city as a whole (30%). This demonstrates that although residents of Sundbyberg walk or bike for more trips than Hammarby Sjöstad residents, for motorized trips, residents of Hammarby Sjöstad choose public transit over the car for a far greater percentage of trips than Sundbyberg residents. The breakdown of mode split for the regions discussed can be seen in Figure 4. Figure 5



Figure 5: Mode of travel (2007)

Figure 7: Average car emissions

100%

1200

80%

kg CO2 equivalents per apartment per year

car tvärbanan tram


bus bicycle

60%

walking

913 800 438 400

40%

0 Hammarby Sjöstad

Reference District

(2007)

(2007)

20%

Brick, 2008

0% Hammarby Sjöstad

Reference District Brick, 2008

Figure 8: Average transport-related emissions of residents Figure 6: Mode of travel to work for Hammarby Sjöstad residents

Transport-related Emissions The low car ownership rate, low car mode share and short commute distances help to reduce the carbon footprint of Hammarby Sjöstad residents. CO2 emissions per apartment from personal transport by car are more than 50% lower in Hammarby Sjöstad than in the reference district, as seen in Figure 7. These savings alone would yield a reduction of approximately 2,373 tonnes of CO2 per year (Brick 2008). Moreover, by measuring kilometers traveled per resident per year by both private and public transport, along with estimates of emission rates of vehicles, it is estimated that overall transportrelated emissions for residents of Hammarby Sjöstad are less than half that for an average Stockholm resident and less than a third that of an average resident of Sweden, as seen in Figure 8. The statistics presented in this section quantify some of the many benefits of integrated policy and design measures. These comparisons show that even in a city as ambitious as Stockholm, concentration of integrated policy and design measures in a single district can bring about further reductions in carbon footprint.

walking 3%

car 5%

bicycle 14%

annual transport-related emissions per resident (kg CO2)

shows a more detailed breakdown of mode split for Hammarby Sjöstad and a reference district. The Hammarby Sjöstad values are generated from surveys of residents. The reference district values are based on a previous overall study of comparable city districts, but have been adapted for Hammarby Sjöstad. (Brick 2008) Furthermore, an internet-based survey of Hammarby Sjöstad residents conducted by ITDP Europe in 2010 asked respondents what mode of transportation they take most often to get to work. It was found that 3% of respondents walk to work, 14% cycle, 78% take public transit and 5% drive, as seen in Figure 6. This shows that residents overwhelmingly prefer to take public transportation to work rather than driving. Stockholm’s congestion charge likely has an influence on this decision. In addition, the survey found that 39% of residents live less than 5 km from their place of work, 43% live between 5 and 10 km and 18% live more than 10 km from work. These short commute distances also make it easy to travel to work by nonmotorized modes or public transit. The average one-way commute time of residents was found to be 33 minutes. (ITDP Europe 2010)

1800 1484 1200

600

996

402

0

metro 29% bus 26%

Hammarby Sjöstad

Stockholm

Sweden

(2010)

(2009)

(2007)


tram 23%

(2007)


lessons learned A holistic approach to planning, grounded in strong environmental goals can help shape better new developments. These goals should be created as early as possible, making it possible to integrate them into every part of the infrastructure early in the planning process. These goals should be formed in close cooperation with all stakeholders and should include a discussion of possible technical solutions and their potential results within the planned district. Context is also important to new developments. In Stockholm the availability of high quality transport and a congestion charge has a strong influence on all residents, including those in this new development. Meeting environmental goals does not end once the development is built. The district plan should include information and incentives to influence the behavior of residents in the long term. Following this line of thought, new urban districts should design an evaluation process with a structure for follow-up with a clearly defined feedback process to ensure continued sustainability of the project.

sources

Blomquist, Anna (2010). Fakta om SL och Lanet 2009. Stockholm, AB Storstockholms Lokaltrafik. Brick, Karolina (2008). Report Summary — Follow Up of Environmental Impact in Hammarby Sjöstad. Grontmij AB, Stockholm. CABE website, Hammarby Sjöstad Case Study, http://www.cabe.org.uk/case-studies/hammarby-sjostad/design (accessed July 14, 2010). City of Stockholm (2005). Disability Policy Programme for the City of Stockholm: Summarized Version, Malmö. City of Stockholm website, http://international. stockholm.se/Press-and-media/Stockholmstories/Sustainable-City/ (accessed July 14, 2010). City of Sundbyberg website, http://www. sundbyberg.se/ (accessed July 14, 2010). Communication with Björn Cederquist, City Planning Department, City of Stockholm, August 2010. Communication with Daniel Firth, Transport

Planner, Stockholm City Traffic Administration, July 2010. Communication with Malena Karlsson, GlashusEtt — the center for environmental information and communication in Hammarby Sjöstad, July 2010. EIA, Carbon emissions from consumption of energy, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/ datablog/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-climatechange-summit-carbon-emissions-data-countryworld (accessed July 14, 2010). Fränne, Lars (2007). Hammarby Sjöstad — a unique environmental project in Stockholm. GlashusEtt, Stockholm. http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/ inenglish/pdf/HS_miljo_bok_eng_ny.pdf ITDP Europe (2010), internet-based survey of Hammarby Sjöstad residents. Ressel website, http://www.ressel.se/index.asp (accessed July 14, 2010). SL website, http://sl.se/ (accessed July 14, 2010).

Stockholms Stad (2008). The Stockholm Environment Programme 2008-2011: Overarching goals and priorities. Image credits Figure 1: http://maps.google.de/maps/ms?hl=en &ie=UTF8&vps=3&jsv=298d&oe=UTF8&msa= 0&msid=116478322990710211544.000490d42 ec5947427b82 Figure 3: http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/ Photo 1: GlashusEtt Photo 2: Lennart Johansson, Stockholm City Planning Department Photos 3, 5, 6, 14: Luc Nadal, ITDP Photos 4, 7: Cathleen Sullivan, UC Berkeley Photo 8–11: Qian Jiang, ITDP Europe Photo 12: Google Maps Photos 13: Simon Field, ITDP Europe

case study

Houten utrecht, the netherlands Nicole Foletta, ITDP Europe

houten site facts Architect: Rob Derks Population: 43,900 Urban Area: 820 ha Urban Density: 54 persons/ha Number of Residential Units: 18,400 Distance from Utrecht City Center: 8 km Cars: 415 cars/1,000 residents Parking Spaces/Residence: 1.1 Non-motorized Mode Share: 55% Public Transport Mode Share: 11% Households with Carsharing: 2%


Houten 49

background Houten, a city in the province of Utrecht in The Netherlands, is a unique example of an entire city designed and built to prioritize the cyclist and pedestrian. It is a greenfield development with good transit access, high quality bicycle infrastructure, provision of public bikes and carsharing, and application of employer contributions and educational programs to promote cycling. Non-motorized transport use is higher in Houten than in comparable cities while car use is lower. The city’s innovative traffic layout was a departure from the norms of the time when it was developed in 1968 and approved by the city council. The design limited intra-city car use and gave priority to traffic safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Core design features include narrow roads, application of traffic calming measures and separation of bicycle paths from car traffic whenever possible. The basic layout of the city consists of two train stations, each surrounded by a ring road with a radius of approximately one kilometer. The rest of the city is covered by an extensive, 129 kilometer network of bicycle paths (Photos 1 and 2; Figure 1). There are 31 residential districts, each of which is only accessible to cars via the peripheral ring roads encircling the town. However, the network of paths for cyclists and pedestrians includes a thoroughfare that passes directly through the town center, providing filtered permeability for cyclists and pedestrians. The majority of schools and important buildings are located along this thoroughfare. Due to this design, cycling is the most direct mode of transportation and is often even faster than travel by car. 1 Houten’s innovative design features along with the city’s persistent policies to favor cyclists and pedestrians have resulted in numerous measured benefits, including improved cyclist and pedestrian safety, increased activity levels of residents, and reduced use of motorized vehicles. Furthermore, this case study demonstrates that innovative design features are not limited to new districts within a city, but can be applied to new cities as a whole.

planning process In 1966 the national government identified Houten, then a small village with a population of about 3,000, as a high growth area and mandated a growth plan be developed to accommodate an eventual population of 100,000. In 1968 Dutch architect Rob Derks offered a plan heavily focused on filtered permeability: a dense network of direct routes for cyclists and a course network of general roads, offering limited city center access to cars (see Filtered Permeability sidebar, p. 49). The city council, which was then made up of civilians and farmers and no politicians, approved Derk’s plan, which they believed would provide a more liveable quality to their city. They hired four city advisors (including Rob Derks) with expertise in architecture, city planning and transportation engineering to implement the plan. This combination of technical and planning expertise was key to the success of the development. In 1974 an agreement was made with the national government to fund the first ring road. Construction began in 1978. Further infrastructure was publicly funded, both through the local government

and using grants from the regional and national governments. In 1994 Houten was again designated as a new growth area under the government’s new Vinex Location program (see Vinex Locations sidebar, p. 50). Plans were made to construct a second train station, also surrounded by a ring road with bicycle paths and mixed use lanes throughout. This area is referred to as South Houten. To this day, city policies in Houten have a strong focus on bicycle safety and bicycle rights. The local cyclist union is also very active in advocating for cycling infrastructure and cycling rights.

key policy and design measures Sustainable transportation is one of the main priorities of the City of Houten. Beyond using urban design to encourage cycling and walking, the city has also applied several other policy measures, the combination of which has had a great impact on travel behavior of its citizens. These are described below.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure As mentioned, the city of Houten has over 129 kilometers of cycle paths, which are colored brick-red. In the city center these paths are completely separated from car traffic (Photo 3), although motorized scooters are allowed to use them. (Dutch law places low-speed scooters in the same category as bicycles, therefore they cannot legally be excluded from using the paths.) In order to improve safety, speed bumps are located on cycle paths throughout the city designed specifically to slow motorized scooters while providing minimal disturbance to cyclists (Photo 4). The entrance to many of the cycle paths are blocked by bollards, so cars are physically unable to enter these pathways. Only in residential areas do bikes share roads with cars, but speeds in these areas are limited and the streets are traffic calmed to maintain safety for pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, signs are located on these streets stating that cars are guests on the road and must give priority to cyclists. Bicycle tunnels and bridges have been built under or over the ring roads so that neither bicycle nor car traffic are interrupted (Photo 5). In addition, cycle paths connect Houten to the city of Utrecht where many residents commute for work. This extensive focus on bicycle infrastructure and bicycle priority above the car on all city streets is unique to the city of Houten. Furthermore, infrastructure costs for Houten are no higher than for any other Vinex location in the Netherlands (Beaujon 2002; Tiemens 2010). This focus makes cycling in Houten easier, safer and more convenient than in other cities. Surveys have shown that even those not predisposed to cycling cycle more as a result of living in Houten (Hilbers 2008). This demonstrates the strong impact infrastructure can have on travel choices. One issue encountered is that since so many residents cycle, it can often be difficult to find a bicycle parking spot, especially in hightrafficked areas like the city center (Photo 6). To resolve this issue, the city is currently constructing a staffed bicycle parking facility and bicycle shop under the tracks of the central train station.

planning advisors considered how the location of housing and layout of roads and bicycle paths would affect resident travel behavior. They did not neglect the car in their designs, but created a layout that would give priority to cyclists. Street Layout and Design The street network in Houten consists of north and south ring roads, each with a radius of about one kilometer (Figure 1). From the ring road there are roads leading to every residence, however, generally there are no direct links between neighborhoods by car. In order to access another neighborhood, drivers must first enter the ring road and then exit again at their destination. Furthermore, even on these residential roads used to access homes, priority is given to cyclists (Photo 7). Other than these mixed-use roads the majority of streets within the city are for cyclists only and cars are restricted from entering. Due to the layout of streets and cycle ways, cyclists have much more direct access to various parts of the city, often resulting in cycling being the fastest mode of travel. Urban design features were used to mark the transitions from the ring road to the residential areas. By law, drivers are required to slow down when exiting the ring road, which has a speed limit of 90 km/hr, and entering the 30 km/hr residential areas, but these design features help to further ensure safety at ring road exits. First, large buildings are located on either side of the road at these transition points to act as a visual signal to drivers that they are entering the city. Additionally, there is a change in the road from asphalt pavement to bricks and a fork to slow down car speed. Furthermore, no residential street is straight for more than 75 meters, which helps to maintain safe vehicle speeds and heighten driver awareness of the surroundings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4QT5rvnfS0

Filtered permeability is an urban planning and design technique that allows pedestrians and cyclists to travel through an area more directly than motorists. This makes travel by these modes more convenient and even faster than traveling by car, stimulating mode switching and reducing emissions. This approach may even include strategies to limit or restrict movement by cars. Filtered permeability applications often include separating pedestrian and cycling paths from roads for motorized vehicles. Houten, for example has built a limited street network for motorized vehicles while providing a more extensive network of car-free paths for pedestrians and cyclists. As a result, traveling by bike is often more direct and even faster than traveling by car. In addition, pedestrian and cycle paths have been separated from roads for motorized vehicles whenever possible, even at intersections where bicycle bridges or tunnels have been built to keep cycling traffic separate from car traffic.

car-oriented street mixed use road cycle only path cyclist and pedestrian path train tracks train station

Urban Design 1

filtered permeability

Houten’s early focus on urban design is a key to the city’s current level of transport sustainability. When designing the city, Houten’s Figure 1: Street Layout of Houten


vinex locations

Vinex Locations are areas in the Netherlands, generally in the outskirts of cities, designated for housing development. The program was created by the Dutch Ministry of Housing in 1993 as an answer to the anticipated housing shortage, mainly due to the high growth rate of the population. More than just an urban-extension program, the Vinex project was intended to metamorphose the shape of the Netherlands. Over a million houses were to be built by 2015, in new neighborhoods fulfilling special conditions. “To fit the requirements of the consumer in the 21st century,” special attention was given to quality, sustainability and social equity. The principles of Vinex housing are: ·· Build cohesive neighborhoods in place of existing urban gaps to reduce the fragmentation of Dutch cities and to protect green areas ·· Make easily accessible all urban facilities and, in particular, shopping centers in order to increase the potential customer base ·· Reduce car-dependency by providing easy access to urban facilities by public transport or NMT ·· Build a viable and social structure that will correspond to all layers of society Vinex Locations are required to create growth plans following certain standards. To avoid segregation, 30% of housing is required to be social housing, which is subsidized by the government and meant for low-income households. Additionally, housing must be high density with at least 30 houses per hectare, must conform to market conditions, must maintain the relation between existing and new urban areas and must use sustainable design (Vinex Location Website).

Public Space Design The city of Houten has incorporated many open public spaces and green areas into its design. Next to the central train station is a plaza surrounded by a man-made canal and home to numerous shops and cafes. The plaza is often used for public markets, making it a bustling activity center. A similar plaza with shops and cafes but incorporating a Romanesque theme, is planned for the Houten Castellum station in the south of the city. Many small play areas and parks are located throughout the city so that no one has to go far to find green space. In addition, a small forest complete with cycle paths and play areas for children was created just outside the city. The objective was to create an area near the city, accessible by bicycle or walking, where residents could escape to enjoy nature without having to drive. Land Use Planning and Design In the core of each of Houten’s rings is a train station, so that no one lives more than two kilometers away from a station. Next to each station is a plaza with shops and other amenities. Housing is arranged

Houten 51

“like pedals of a flower” around these central areas (Beaujon 2002). This style follows the classic layout of a transit oriented development (TOD), with housing and retail focused around a central transit station, maximizing access for all residents. Furthermore, the majority of schools and important buildings are located along a bicycle thoroughfare, which runs through the center of the city, providing easy access to important destinations by bike. A business park is located in South Houten close to the border between the two rings, providing many job opportunities to residents. In addition, the historic city center of Houten is located in the southwestern part of the northern ring, which consists of a plaza surrounded by shops and restaurants as well as several historical buildings, including a protestant church that dates back to the 1500’s.

Table 1: Information about carsharing companies in Houten Wheels4All

Greenwwheels

Deposit

250 €

225 €

Monthly subscription fee (varies based on subscription type)

Several options: 2.5, 5, 10, 20 or 150 €

4,700


2.5, 5, 10, 20 or 150 €

Ranges from:

Fee per km (varies based on subscription type)

0.11 or 0.13 €

0.10 €

Hourly fee (varies based on subscription type)

0.5, 1.6 or 2.5 €

2.50 €

Discounts available

No substantial discount available

Discount with Dutch Railway card (NS card)

Company membership option

Yes

Yes

Number of cars available in Houten

14

2

http://www.wheels4all.nl, http://www.greenwheels.nl

Public Transport As mentioned, Houten has two railway stations, one located in the center of each ring road. Houten Castellum was recently renovated and additional track capacity was added. Every 15 minutes a train takes travelers from Houten Station to the city of Utrecht, with a journey time of 10 minutes. There are also four trains per hour running in the opposite direction, towards the town of Geldermalsen. Houten also has bus connections to Utrecht and other regional centers. The trains and buses make it easy for residents to access Utrecht and other parts of the Netherlands without needing a car. Train and bus riders in Houten may use the OV-chipkaart, a contactless smartcard that will eventually be used on all public transport in the Netherlands. Introduction of this card simplifies the process of traveling to other parts of the country. The same card can also be used in the GWL Terrein development located in Amsterdam.

Table 2: Houten as compared to nearby and surrounding areas Houten

Zeist

Milton Keynes

South Houten

Veldhuizen

Population

43,900

60,400

196,000

18,700

9,350

Urban area (ha)

820

2,500

8,900

350

190

Urban density (persons/ha)

54

24

22

53

49

Number of residential units

18,400

26,600

na

5,700

3,500


415

530

na

449

na

Car

34%

46%

70%

58%

77%

Public transit

11%

11%

10%

16%

10%

Public Bikes

Bicycle

28%

29%

3%

24%

13%

An OV-Fiets (translated as “public transport bicycle”) rental station with 35 bikes is located at a staffed bicycle parking facility near Houten’s central train station (Photo 8). OV-Fiets started as a pilot project in the Netherlands in 2002 with the aim to integrate bike rental as part of the services offered by the Dutch public transport system. There are now over 160 rental points, mainly located at train stations throughout the Netherlands. The scheme has been designed for frequent users, mainly commuters, to encourage cycle use over motorized transport for the first/ last leg of their journeys between the station and their homes or places of work. Currently 50% of the nation’s rail passengers have access to the scheme (OV-Fiets (NL) 2008). OV-Fiets users must register with the system and a Dutch bank account is necessary for the subscription charges. Users can sign up using their existing annual rail season card (much like the Oyster scheme in London) or obtain a membership card. Each individual rental costs € 2.85 per 20 hour period up to a maximum of 60 hours. The yearly subscription charge is € 9.50. Members may use a bike at any location throughout the Netherlands, but must always return the bike to the station where it was obtained. The OV-Fiets system differs from bikesharing systems being introduced in many cities, such as Velib in Paris and Stockholm City Bikes, in which short trips are encouraged and users can pick-up and drop-off bikes at numerous locations throughout the city. OV-Fiets, on the other hand, has one charge per 20 hour period, so users often keep the bikes for longer periods of time. Additionally, each bike comes equipped with a lock, making it possible for users to park the bike, for example, at their office during the day, and use

Walking

27%

14%

17%

2%

0%

Mode share

the bike throughout the day for trips or errands. The bike must then be brought back to the same station where it was checked-out. Therefore it functions as a hybrid system between bikesharing and bicycle rental.

ITDP Europe, 2010; City of Houten; City of Zeist; Milton Keynes Council, 2009; Hilbers, 2008

cars. Companies may only offer transport subsidies related to bikes or public transit, in order to encourage employees to choose these options over commuting by car (Tiemens 2010).

Educational Programs Carsharing Two carsharing companies are located in Houten: Greenwheels and Wheels4all. Greenwheels has two carsharing vehicles in Houten, one of which is located near the central station. Wheels4all has fourteen cars located throughout the city. These vehicles provide residents of Houten with access to a car when needed without having to own one. More information about these companies is included in Table 1.

Children are taught from an early age≠ not only about the health benefits of cycling, but also about bicycle safety. Since cycling is a primary mode of transport in Houten, it is essential that residents understand appropriate and safe bicycle use. Starting at an early age Houten’s children are given a thorough education in bicycle riding and take a compulsory bicycle exam when they are 10 years old to test their knowledge of hand signals, road rules and riding ability. Children must take this test until they pass (CylcePress 2003).

Employer Contributions In the Netherlands, companies are required to compensate employees for their transport to work. This money is subsidized by the government through tax deductions. Typically employers provide a variety of options that employees can choose between, such as reimbursement for fuel, free parking, transit passes, and even providing money towards the purchase of a new bike. For example, City of Houten employees can purchase a tax deductible bike every three years. The City of Houten goes beyond national policy to restrict companies from offering compensation options related to

quantitative analysis In order to quantify the benefits of Houten’s unique combination of urban design structure and policy measures, we compared it to Zeist, as a reference point within the Netherlands, and Milton Keynes, England, to demonstrate the difference between bike-oriented and car-oriented urban design (Table 2). Zeist has a similar population to Houten and, like Houten, is located on the outskirts of Utrecht (a


Houten 53

1 Houten

3 A car yields as cyclists cross

4 2 Cycle path Houten has 129 km of cycle tracks, many of which are fully separated from traffic.

Speed bumps slow motor scooters which are permitted by Dutch law on cycle paths.


Houten 55

7 Mixed use street

5 Cycle tunnel

On residential streets, bikes share space with cars, but as the sign indicates, drivers must give cyclists right-of-way.

Cycle paths cross the ring road, giving both cyclists and motorists safe, uninterrupted travel routes.

8 OV-Fiets bicycles

6 Bicycle trailer Children learn about cycling and cycling safety from an early age in Houten and many families travel together via bike.

An OV-Fiets bicycle rental station near Houten’s train station is a blend between bikeshare and traditional bike rental, allowing for day-long rentals to encourage passengers to ride to and from the station.


regional center with a population of 307,000). Like many cities in the Netherlands, Zeist has good bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure; however its street network is much more car-oriented than the Houten network. Milton Keynes, like Houten, was designed in the 1960’s as a new city; it was the last and largest of the British government’s new towns, under the 1946 New Towns Act. The city is located about 80 km northwest of London. Unlike Houten’s bicycle and pedestrian focused, dense, urban design, Milton Keynes was designed with the car in mind, focusing on low densities and easy car access on high speed grid roads. In a further attempt to accommodate the car, the parking supply is quite high; as much as 2-3 times higher than what would be expected for a city of its size (Whiteside 2007). Additionally, the area of South Houten is compared to the neighborhood of Veldhuizen, located in the Leidsche Rijn district of the city of Utrecht. Like South Houten, Leidsche Rijn was identified as a high growth area, or Vinex Location (see Vinex Locations sidebar). Both locations were required to follow the same Vinex Location guidelines, including reserving 30% of housing as social housing, providing a density of at least 30 houses per hectare, maintaining the relation between existing and new urban areas and using sustainable design. The neighborhoods in the Leidsche Rijn district were designed individually, each with its own identity. However, the urban designers of Veldhuizen and other neighborhoods of Leidsche Rijn took a different approach to the planners of Houten, placing more focus on cars and therefore providing more parking facilities, more main roads, and improvements to public transit (Hilbers 2008). Table 2 provides a summary of statistics for the entire city of Houten (within the two ring roads), the city of Zeist, the city of Milton Keynes, the area of South Houten (within the southern ring road) and the neighborhood of Veldhuizen.

Car and Bicycle Ownership Rates While the car ownership rate of Houten is not necessarily low (415 cars per 1,000 residents), it is lower than the nearby city of Zeist (530 cars per 1,000 residents). A survey of Milton Keynes residents found that 45% of households have two or more cars (Milton Keynes Council 2009). This is higher than for the city of Houten where 36% of households have two or more cars (ITDP Europe 2010). The Milton Keynes

Houten 57

survey did not collect exact numbers of cars owned per household. Surveys conducted in both Houten and Milton Keynes asked about the bicycle ownership rates for households. In Houten only 2% of households are without a bicycle while in Milton Keynes 35% of households do not own a bike. The bicycle ownership rate is quite high in Houten at 3.4 bikes per household. The rate is much lower in Milton Keynes at 1.1 bikes per household. This is not surprising given that the Netherlands is known for having a much stronger bicycle culture than England. However, investments in bicycle infrastructure also likely contribute to this difference. The city of Houten has nearly three meters of cycle paths per resident while Milton Keynes has just over one meter of cycle paths per resident. Furthermore, the cycle paths in Houten are direct and are perceived as safe by residents, while the cycle lanes in Milton Keynes are not direct, can be difficult to follow and are perceived by some to be dangerous after dark (Whiteside 2007).

Bicycle Use and Perceptions Results of a survey conducted by University of Utrecht students shows that people in South Houten are more active, on average, than people in both Veldhuizen and the Netherlands as a whole (Figure 2). Factors contributing to this increased activity are that residents of South Houten more often cycle for daily and weekly errands and also spend more hours per week on recreational cycling (2.3 hours per week for South Houten residents versus 1.4 hours per week for Veldhuizen residents). It would appear that the spatial design structure and extensive cycle network seem to encourage cycling in Houten. This is further supported by survey findings that residents of South Houten are more satisfied with the number of unhindered bike paths and give higher ratings for quality and safety of bike paths (Figure 3). In addition, more than half of survey respondents stated that their bicycle use increased after moving to South Houten (Hilbers 2008).

Veldhuizen residents in 2008 found that more respondents from South Houten (24%) cycle to work than respondents from Veldhuizen (13%), as seen in Figure 4. Furthermore, 14% of respondents from South Houten cycle or walk to a public transportation stop or station and then take public transportation to work versus 9% in Veldhuizen. A far smaller proportion of South Houten residents (58%) travel to work by car than Veldhuizen residents (77%). Surveys of residents of Houten and Milton Keynes found that far more work trips made by Houten residents (31%) are by bike than work trips made by Milton Keynes residents (4%), as seen in Figure 5. In addition, far more commute trips by Milton Keynes residents (73%) are by car than in Houten (53%). This demonstrates that Milton Keynes residents are much more dependent on their cars for work trips than Houten residents. Still, many work trips made by Houten residents are by car, particularly for trips out of the city. However, by far, the most popular mode of travel for trips made within the city is cycling. The majority of Houten residents travel to the grocery store (53%), conduct other shopping (70%), run service related errands like visiting the bank or barber (79%) and visit friends and family in Houten (79%) by bike or on foot, as seen in Figure 6.

Distance Traveled Distance traveled is a key measure for evaluating transport-related emissions. Resident surveys found that residents of South Houten have shorter commute times than residents of Veldhuizen, even while more people commute to work by bike and fewer by car. This suggests that residents of South Houten live closer to work, thus requiring less daily travel, and reducing the carbon footprint of residents (Hilbers 2008).

Figure 3: Perceptions of bicycle path quality and safety in South Houten and Veldhuizen

bicycle path safety

Veldhuizen (2008)

South Houten (2008)

bicycle path quality 1 bad

Mode Split While Houten residents do more recreational cycling than residents in surrounding areas, encouraging more transportational cycling is key to reducing carbon emissions. A survey of South Houten and

2 average

3 good Hilbers, 2008

Figure 4: Mode of transportation to work for South Houten and Veldhuizen residents

Figure 2: Activity level of residents of The Netherlands, South Houten and Veldhuizen 100%

100%

car

inactive (less than 0.5 hours of exercise per week)

80%

80%

moderately active (0.5 – 2.49 hrs/wk)

60%



Overall, more than half of all trips made by Houten residents (55%) are made by non-motorized modes of travel, which is higher than for the city of Zeist (43%) and Milton Keynes (20%). Further, higher proportions of trips made by Milton Keynes (70%) and Zeist residents (46%) are by car than for the city of Houten (34%), as seen in Figure 7. A further study found that 42% of trips shorter than 7.5 kilometers in Houten are made by bike, and around 21% by foot (City of Houten Website). Another study states that car use in Houten is 25% lower than in similar cities (Beaujon 2002). All of these studies support the finding that the combination of measures present in Houten have contributed to improved sustainability of travel choices of residents, particularly for trips within the city.

active (2.5+ hrs/week) 40%

public transport with car as pre-transport public transport with cycling or walking as pre-transport

60%

bicycle 40%

walking

20%

20%

0%

0% The Netherlands

South Houten

Veldhuizen

(2005)

(2008)

(2008)

Hilbers, 2008

South Houten

Vedhuizen

(2008)

(2008)

Hilbers, 2008


Houten 59

Figure 7: Mode split for all trips

Figure 5: Mode of travel to work 100%

100% car

80%

car 80%

public transport

public transport bicycle

percent of trips

percent of trips

bicycle walking

60%

40%

20%

walking

60%

40%

20%

0%

0% Houten

Milton Keynes

Houten

Zeist

Milton Keynes

(2010)

(2009)

(2010)

(2008)

(2009)

Hilbers, 2008

ITDP Europe, 2010; Rijkswaterstaat Centre for Transport and Navigation, 2008; Milton Keynes Council, 2009

lessons learned Residents of Houten cycle far more and drive far less than their neighbors, and much less than their counterparts in Milton Keynes, England. However, the city has been so successful at promoting cycling and transit, that now over-crowding has become an issue. Bicycle parking facilities are filled capacity and residents complain about lack of bicycle parking. The city of Houten is aware of this issue and is currently constructing a staffed bicycle parking facility combined with a bicycle shop and bicycle repair services under the tracks of the central train station. The demand for trains leaving from Houten’s central station was also underestimated. As a result, frequency of train service to Houten was increased and the number of tracks on the line from Utrecht to the south via Houten is currently being doubled to four tracks. An important strategy not applied in Houten is to restrict parking by limiting and pricing parking. There is more than one parking space per residential unit in Houten. As a result, the majority of households own cars and the car ownership rate in the city is fairly high.

Figure 6: Houten residents’ mode of travel for various trip types (2010) 100% car 80%

public transport


bicycle walking

60%

40%

20%

0% grocery shopping

other shopping

service related errands

visiting family and friends

In addition, two parking garages are located near the central station. The first two hours are free within these garages, then 1.50 Euros per hour is charged up to a maximum of 9 Euros per day. The shop owners in central Houten subsidize the free hours through their rent. They were worried they would lose business if people had to pay too much for parking (Tiemens 2010). However, as shown in Figure 6, most residents of Houten already walk or ride a bike for shopping trips, so parking prices could easily be raised without hurting business. Though most do cycle, the low prices for parking might encourage some residents to drive to the grocery store rather than cycle, even though they live within cycling distance of the store. Other cities that choose to replicate Houten’s model should limit or economically decouple residential parking in order to encourage reduced car ownership. In addition, non-residential parking should be priced in order to encourage residents to use other forms of transportation besides driving to do their shopping.

ITDP Europe, 2010

Indeed, surveys of residents throughout the city of Houten found that 21% of residents live within 5 kilometers of their place of work or education, and more than half live within 15 kilometers. However, the finding that almost half of residents live 15 kilometers or more of their place or work corresponds with the finding that 53% of resident commute trips are by car (Figure 5). For longer travel distances, residents are forced to travel by motorized modes since most are not able to cycle or walk such long distances. While Houten has good public transport access, it appears that many residents still choose to travel by car to work, particularly for destinations more than 25 kilometers from home. Increased car travel increases the carbon footprint of residents.

Half of Houten residents travel less than one kilometer to their grocery store, and 18% travel a mere 500 meters or less. The average distance residents travel to a grocery store is 1.2 km (ITDP Europe 2010). However, 47% of residents stated that they typically travel to the grocery store by car (Figure 6). Residents might be incentivized to drive to the store based on the low parking rates in parking garages in Houten and the high availability of parking spaces. If parking prices were increased, more residents would likely shift to cycling to the grocery store, since the majority of residents already cycle for most other trip purposes within the city (Figure 6). Indeed, many residents own bike trailers which can be used to carry goods (Photo 6). These trailers, combined with the short distance to a grocery store make shopping trips by bicycle feasible.

sources

Beaujon, Otto (2002). Biker’s Paradise: Houten. Bike Europe. City of Houten website, http://www.houten.nl/overgemeente-houten/projecten/houten-demarreert/ internationaal/ (accessed August 9, 2010). City of Zeist website, http://www.zeist.nl/ (accessed August 9, 2010). CyclePress (2003). Taking a Look at Houten City, CylcePress, No. 189, May 2003. Greenwheels website, http://www.greenwheels.nl (accessed August 9, 2010). Hilbers, Brechtje (2008). The influence of the spatial planning on bicycle use and health — Comparisons between Houten and Leidsche Rijn. University of Amsterdam.

ITDP Europe (2010). Internet-based survey of Houten residents, conducted in cooperation with the City of Houten. Milton Keynes Council (2009). Milton Keynes MultiModal Transport Model — Report of Survey, Halcrow Group Limited, London. OV-Fiets (NL) (2008). Bikeoff Project — Design Against Crime, http://www.bikeoff.org/design_ resource/dr_PDF/schemes_public_Ov_fiets.pdf Rijkswaterstaat Centre for Transport and Navigation (2008). Tiemens, Herbert (2010). Interview with Herbert Tiemens, Traffic Planner, City of Houten, May 27, 2010.

Vinex website, http://vinex-locaties.nl (accessed August 9, 2010). Wheels4all website, http://www.wheels4all.nl (accessed August 9, 2010). Whiteside, Kevin (2007). MK Transport — Moving with the Times, Urban Design, Issue 104, pp. 27–33. Image credits Figure 1: City of Houten Opening spread photo: Nicole Foletta Photos 1–6, 8: Nicole Foletta Photo 7: Simon Field

sihlcity site facts

case study

Developer: Karl Steiner AG Architect: Theo Hotz Architects Developed Area: 4 ha Construction Began: 2003 Year Completed: 2007 Number of Businesses: 97

Sihlcity zurich, switzerland

Jobs: 2,300 Visitors per Day: 19,000 Visitor Parking Spaces: 800 Allocated Staff Parking: 0 Transit and NMT Combined Mode Share: 67% Number of Carsharing Vehicle Available: 3

Simon Field, ITDP Europe


Sihlcity 63

·· Provision of “recreation quality” space within the site (Photo 1); ·· Provision of capital and revenue support for the following

background Sihlcity is a new non-residential retail and leisure development located about 2.5 km to the south of Zurich city center (Figure 1). It is considered best practice because parking is heavily restricted, a result of a policy in Zurich to only allow new development in sites that have adequate access to public transit as well as walking and cycling facilities, thereby detering new car trips to destinations that might traditionally attract them. The city uses a “trip access contingent model” to determine what policies will help keep car trips below a certain level. In this case the process suggested a reduction in parking supply, and provided incentives for the imposition of high usage costs. Today only 33% of trips to Sihlcity are made by car. There are 75 shops, 14 cafés and restaurants, a cinema, church, library, hotel, gym and medical centre, as well as high quality public space at Sihlcity (Photo 1). The heart of the development is a fourstory mall accommodating almost all of the retail businesses. The site was previously occupied by a paper mill, ceased operations in 1990. In 2003 the land was bought by the developer Karl Steiner AG, which integrated four of the historic buildings into their plans for a new non-residential quarter, named after the River Sihl bordering the site to the east. In 2008 Sihlcity received a European Shopping Centre Commendation, in recognition of the work of Theo Hotz Architects in blending the old and new, as well as the provision of a variety of businesses and services on the same compact site (Sihlcity, 2008). Large shopping centers are significant trip attractors, and without incentives not to, most people get to them by car. To prevent new

traffic congestion and pollution on the routes to Silhcity, the City and Canton of Zurich invoked planning regulations to restrict car access a) as a condition of initial planning permission, and (b) in the longerterm after opening. This strategy includes parking management, better public transportation, improvements to infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians, and the provision of a sustainable home delivery service.

planning process According to the Canton of Zurich Structural Plan, “heavily frequented sites”1 may only be located in areas that satisfy the following accessibility criteria: ·· A maximum distance of 300 m to a rail station served by at least one train per hour, or 150 m to a transit stop served by eight or more trams, buses or trolleybuses per hour; ·· Sufficient road capacity in the surrounding area for general traffic; ·· Proximity to existing pedestrian routes and cycle networks Having passed this initial screening, the City of Zurich approved the plans for construction of Sihlcity subject to conditions being imposed on the site owner and developer that include:

1

efined by the Canton of Zurich as sites that generate more than 3,000 D trips per day on more than 100 days of the year.

public transportation improvements: extension of platforms at Saalsporthalle S-Bahn (urban rail) station, with a new pedestrian subway giving access to the site; construction of a subterranean bus station; operation of bus route 89 and an extension to tram route 5 for two years (Photo 2); ·· The development must pay for the construction of new access roads and links to the existing bicycle network on three sides of the site; ·· Provision of a bicycle-based home delivery service; ·· Parking on the site is capped at a maximum of 850 spaces, all of which must be charged for, plus a cap on car trips to the site (access contingent). The access contingent model is a mechanism to impose limits on the number of trips made to/from a site by private car in a given period, with stiff financial penalties for non-compliance. This provides an incentive for the owner of a new development to make access by alternative means as attractive as possible. The first step is the calculation of the number of parking spaces permitted, based on the following criteria in the City of Zurich’s parking regulations: ·· Floor area per building category e.g. offices, retail, restaurants; ·· A reduction factor based on proximity to the city centre; ·· A reduction factor based on transit accessibility level; ·· A reduction factor where local NOx limits are exceeded; In Zurich’s central old town district, for example, a blanket reduction factor of 90% applies, i.e. the maximum number of spaces is 10% of the value based on floor space alone. For Sihlcity one parking place was allowed per 110 m2 ground floor space, giving a total of 800 spaces. The “specific trip generation” per space per day, evening period and peak hour is capped under a formula based on the categories of expected visitors. This and estimated price elasticities then inform the level of parking charges (Table 1). The maximum car trip

contingent values for Sihlcity are as follows: ·· 10,000 trips per day, decreasing to 8,800 by 2012; ·· 1,300 trips at night; ·· 800 trips per peak hour.

key policy and design measures A two-fold travel demand management strategy is in place at Sihlcity: high parking costs to “push” visitors and workers out of private cars, reinforced by parking restrictions in the surrounding area, and high quality local and city-wide transit and non-motorized transport infrastructure to “pull” people onto alternatives.

Parking Parking management discourages trips to Sihlcity by car: spaces are few and expensive. There are 850 spaces in the on-site multi-story car park, of which 50 are allocated to park & ride season ticket holders, but none to Sihlcity workers. Parking charges are listed on the Sihlcity website and are in Table 1. A stay of up to four hours costs 7 Swiss Francs (chf), comparable with the 1–2 zones transit day ticket at 8 chf. However, residents of Zurich can avail themselves of a range of period passes for one or more zones in the Zurich Verkehrsverbund (integrated transportation authority area), a national travel pass (GA card) or national half-fare card, reducing the real and perceived costs of transit significantly 2. As there are no discounts for those employed on the site, it is prohibitively expensive to commute by car. Table 1 shows that it costs 20 chf to park at Sihlcity for an eight-hour working day.

2

ver 400,000 GA cards and 2.27 million half-fare cards were sold in O 2009; 35% of the Swiss population own one of these mobility passes. Sources: SBB (2009) and FSO (2010).

Table 1: Sihlcity parking charges Time (hours)

Evening rate 20:00 – 08:00 (chf) *